160-200rwkw ? How To Get There

[DLuded]

NO R32's gtst's on it for anyone who cares,

im not sure if they have updates the list but the 1989 r32 gtst wasnt on the list i saw a few months ago. only the 1990-1993 ones were

[unarmed_skyline]

well as 160rwkw is seeming less possible, prob thinking of turboing it but if i do i would want the turbo to kick in a bit earlier, if i use turbo from r32 will all the othe stock parts from a 33 work>?? as in manifold, dump pipe, front pipe ect, and also when abouts would the turbo kick in???

[Cubes]

160rwkw... hrmm sounds like a bit I guess but its still fairly slow.

160rwkw won't have you reeling past cars as quick as you think it would, 200rwkw doesn't even really reel past cars that quick.

250rwkw+ is where it starts to look quick.

You don't want the turbo kicking in any earlier than say just under 3000rpm, it will be wasted and much better off having that little bit extra power at higher rpm's.

Watch the tacho next time your selecting a gear and ready to accelerate out of a corner through the hills.

Edited October 12, 2005 by Cubes

[unarmed_skyline]

ey been wondering round the forum looking round and looks like the best way to lower compression ratio to be able to turbo my n/a would be changing to gtr piston's, but i've been told you would also have to change the con rod's is this true and if so would pistons and rod's off a gtst be enough of a drop?? wouldnt it run the same compression as a turbo as i thought the pistons were the only diff between the internals of the n/a and turbo motors??

-- anyone know rough figures on how long and how much it would be to change pistons and con rods??

[blackprincegts]

Hey yo.

Im eventually looking at wacking the turbo onto my RB20DE. Yes you are correct, the only difference between the two motors are the pistons that create higher comp.

I personally dont think its worth doing anything like that to turbo an NA motor. If your going to do it you have to come to terms with the fact that you will have to run low boost(nothing over say 7psi).

I have spoken to many mechanics on this issue and they all tell me that simply retarding the timing a few degrees will lower the compression enough in order to run standard boost.

if you want anything more than that then you ar far better off to swap the whole motor over!

[mid life crisis]

you want to explain to me how changing timing lowers compression?

[benl1981]

If your on p plates just wait a few years - sell your N/A and buy a turbo model.

You can wait!! Might be good for you. I learnt on much slower cars than even a N/A skyline. Instead of looking for performance I learnt how to work on cars, it has proved quite useful.

[meggala]

unarmed_skyline if your thinking of turboing your n/a bolt a turbo on with the r33 turbo stuff including turbo many people have done it sucessfully. dr-drift.com in melbournes west is a good one to talk to for idea's.

cheers

meggala

[Squizz]

unarmed_skyline if your thinking of turboing your n/a  bolt a turbo on with the r33 turbo stuff including turbo many people have done it sucessfully. dr-drift.com in melbournes west is a good one to talk to for idea's.

cheers

meggala

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Turbo an NA 32? That's un-possible!

[scathing]

NA is far cheapest to run and own me think

A high compression, strong and light internalled, big camm'ed, large bore exhaust fitted, NA car with a nice aftermarket ECU isn't going to be cheap either.

Taking out the insurance perspective, it'll cost you a fortune to do and it'll still use more fuel than a "standard" NA. It might not drink more fuel when you're at WOT, but it'll probably drink as much (if not more) commuting around town than a turbo motor making that power.

[benl1981]

turbos should get close to same economy as N/A when not on the hammer. That's why a lot of cars are running turbos with the higher fuel prices.

[Eug]

turbos should get close to same economy as N/A when not on the hammer.  That's why a lot of cars are running turbos with the higher fuel prices.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

plz justify??

how can a motor making more power and more torque be getting the same fuel economy...

i'd like to see a stock R33 GTST with an RB25DET get 550+km to a tank

[Squizz]

plz justify??

how can a motor making more power and more torque be getting the same fuel economy...

i'd like to see a stock R33 GTST with an RB25DET get 550+km to a tank

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My Ceffy got 650.

[TracidTrax]

u would have to spend heaps of money to get to 200rwkw, best thing to do is sell it and buy a gtst and u wont regret it once u have it.

Theres really no point in spending money for a NA when u could buy a gtst for a good price

[Cubes]

plz justify??

how can a motor making more power and more torque be getting the same fuel economy...

i'd like to see a stock R33 GTST with an RB25DET get 550+km to a tank

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They don't make more torque/power if you keep your foot out of it, infact, they make less.

[benl1981]

If you're not on boost and in closed loop operation fuel economy will be the same as a non turbo besides for the fact that maybe the turbo models of the same car have lower compression which = less efficiency. But not much!! R33s have fairly high comp for a turbo motor.

THink about it - same size engine - same design.. to make it go a certain speed you squeeze the throttle, depending on how much air goes through determines how much fuel is delivered. Most of the time at cruise I am using about 4-5% injector duty cycle (A non turbo may have slightly smaller injectors so may be it would be 6%) . Its only when you put your foot down that they guzzle the petrol. A better ECU can help you lean out the mixtures a bit = more power = better fuel consumption.

Why do you think a lot of the manufacturers are going to turbo - can run small motors that return good cruise and idle fuel consumption but the turbo helps produce the power when power is requested.

Turbo technology is better now along with fuel injection and engine management..meaning that they can control fuel consumption a lot better than with early turbos.

Edited October 25, 2005 by benl1981

[Eug]

My Ceffy got 650.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

GTFO Jay ceffies are lighter and 2L (get back to turbo section )

p.s - i can get 600 on the highway too, i'm talking around the city

i know what you mean by driving it "off" boost, but you are incorporating too many variables and not enough controls to "compare" them.

and yes cubes i know they make less torque/power if you keep it at low revs.

when gearbox's are slightly different, injectors, compression, etc etc. - there's too much stuff to take into consideration

ok THEORETICALLY

ie. for the purposes of comparisson... we have two cars

R33 GTS25 (RB25DE) and an R33 GTS25T (RB25DET)

stock for stock...

if we fill up the fuel tanks with say 10L 98RON each.

and drive them both down the highway...

both changing gears at 4000rpm (or even 5000rpm)

now here's teh tricky bit - the GTS25T will pull away and assuming both cars maintain the same driving style - but who will consume 10L first?

now... lets say rev to 3000rpm for each gear change.

the GTS25 will pull away... as the GTS25T doesnt boost.

will the GTST25T save enough fuel driving off boost??

which will have better economy in the end? see what i mean?

i'm not saying your wrong and i'm right, but your claim as to having

close to same fuel economy needs proof.

hope this sparks more debate

[benl1981]

I have in an engine manual somewhere the reported figures and consumption of the different models. There is bugger all difference.

To take off at a similar pace in both cars will see relatively the same consumption - within 5 -10%. There is a lot of variation between the cars now anyway. Cars are over 10 years old - engine wear, oxygen sensor (and other sensors) condition plays a major role.

PS I dont think by changing gears at 3000rpm the GTS25 will pull away - in 3rd gear Im making boost moderate boost by 2000rpm.

Yes maybe from the factory the non turbo is 5-10% better in fuel consumption due to less weight - no turbo, smaller brakes etc, compression (not much different)

What I'm getting at is the difference is next to nil unless you start driving it a bit harder - which a lot of people do. No need for anymore discussion I think..

[scathing]

If you're not on boost and in closed loop operation fuel economy will be the same as a non turbo besides for the fact that maybe the turbo models of the same car have lower compression which = less efficiency.  But not much!! R33s have fairly high comp for a turbo motor.

THink about it - same size engine - same design.. to make it go a certain speed you squeeze the throttle, depending on how much air goes through determines how much fuel is delivered.

Non-turbo cars tend to run a shorter final drive, since they don't have the midrange torque. So assuming the gear ratios are the same, in gear at the same speed the turbo motor should be doing less RPM. In your light throttle situations (where you're not boosting) that should improve your fuel economy.

And once you start doing NA tuning, it just exacerbates the problem. Your power and torque figures start skewing towards the higher rev range, which means you have to make the motor work harder to keep it moving...which drinks more fuel.

I swapped my flywheel out for a lightweight one, and I have to pick a lower gear more often because I don't have the same inertia in the powertrain to keep the car rolling as I used to. If I dropped a set of lightweight internals into my car it'd make the issue even more noticable.

And, unlike with winding the boost up, I can't just turn that weight reduction off.

[Rolls]

Theres no point spending heaps on it if its NA, it will cost way more to make the power you want. Turbo is the best way to go, in which case Id sell your car and buy a GTS-T save you alot of money vs turboing your NA which will still have NA brakes etc.