# 2530 dyno run for glenn



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

been searching the sight and remembered gtaaaaar on here with his tr 2.7 build on 2530s. 

high spec engine at 1.8 bar boost

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/attachme...eet-track-project-build-tr-racing-skyline.jpg

now that is an ACCURATE realistic power plot imo. 

imo youd need some magic dust to get 670 bhp at 1.5 bar. lol


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Ok fine, Ill pass your obviously superior knowledge onto Soichi and Carl and let them know they should stop telling people porkies and their dyno figures are crap ...
Because you know more about it than they do ...

http://www.sthitec.co.nz/
http://www.driftcarl.com/2009/Welcome.html

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/74536-max-hp-figures-hks2530s.html



ps have you read my thread about Gary's car making 900hp on modified 2530's ?
Probably bs too ...


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

im not talking about modified turbos, they could have bigger wheels and housings or machined housings to move more air like a t34 can be converted by turbo technics to a t38 hybrid. thats like comparing a t3 stage 1 cosworth to a t34 stage 3 cosworth its a stupid comparison because the turbos are different.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

That was the ps bit

Check the links


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

yes i checked he uses a dynapack so wheels off bolted hubs to dyno and vwalla elevated crank hp. no doubt better for tuning / comparisons as it must be more consistent just higher outputs.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

But they still make over 600hp at the engine on 1.5 bar or less

All these people must also be wrong


-7/9s Or -5s Garretts - Skylines Australia

PS It is generally considered that Soichi's dyno reads hard, so if Soichi's dyno say xxx hp , then you can bank that figure as being spot on ...

PPS or should I assume you think you can run 10.2's in the quarter in a GTR on less than 600hp ?


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

GT-R Glenn said:


> But they still make over 600hp at the engine on 1.5 bar or less
> 
> All these people must also be wrong
> 
> ...



isnt madden down in the low 10s on 550 awhp. im sure thats where hes at. 

1/4 mile times can be munipulated by suspension, smaller wheels with bigger tyres, weight saving etc so how can you make a fair comparison ?


----------



## Madden (Nov 14, 2004)

scoooby slayer said:


> isnt madden down in the low 10s on 550 awhp. im sure thats where hes at.
> 
> 1/4 mile times can be munipulated by suspension, smaller wheels with bigger tyres, weight saving etc so how can you make a fair comparison ?


Yea 550 hubs mate. so less at the wheels 

I reckon i could go 10.3 with the same power.


----------



## Max Boost (Apr 9, 2010)

:chuckle:


----------



## Madden (Nov 14, 2004)

Just followng up mr slayer saying your don't need massive power to run good times. Same as rips in the gtst 4 doing 10.3 with 600 bhp.

Lol


----------



## Max Boost (Apr 9, 2010)

TOTB looks like it's going to be good this year, and now they've brought their rules in line with the MSA. 

Common sense prevailed :thumbsup:


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

> isnt madden down in the low 10s on 550 awhp. im sure thats where hes at.


So, that would be well over 600 hp at the engine then wouldnt it ...

Remember. we are discussing the fact that you say, 600hp at the engine cant be achieved with -5 or 2530's on 1.5 bar boost....

Your dyno sheet and I raise you Amerikiwis, as discussed in great lenghts on this forum already 

A very well known very rare R34 GTR










A very well known Tarmac R32










Using your analogy of the hub dyno reading too high, both these engines are well over 600 hp no matter how you want to measure it


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

Well the 5s discussion is back again (the old ones are the best  )

opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:

I will start by ignoring the fact that garrett think that nearly 650 is possible with 5s atf (after all what do they know)

A few examples (as in facts)

My stagea made 504 corrected to 574 atf at abbey . It also made 515 at 1.3 at TR did not do a high boost run as power steering pipe split . 
It also recorded 606 atf elswere but Im not so sure that was accurate.

Both Abbey and tweenie said another 600+ was easily possible with extra work as this was with very little work done to the head (just stage 1 cams)

Also Andy H made 640 ish with 2530s and his TOTB time more than backed that up.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

You guys know Hi-octane's GTR track monster thing was running -5s when it made silly power too? It did 9s and made well over 400kw/536whp...


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Some of us do Lith ....
Theres seems to some confusion over the power you can make with -5's or 2530's
You know, 400 kws at the hubs = 400 kws at the wheels...= whatever it is at the engine as they are mechanically linked.

This doesnt mean 400kws on a rolling road = some kind of guess at the engine as you need to allow for slippage, etc etc: therefore you make the power level lower to accomodate this variance.
Carl has run up lots of v8 muscle cars on his dyno (Gary's GTR still holds the record) and most of those guys have also had their engines on torque cradles at some stage and they all seem to think his Hub dyno is pretty dam close ....

So again, 600+ hp at the engine with -5's or 2530's no matter how you work it out is not uncommon / special or unusual.

If scooby wants to search "600hp" he will see this is all correct.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

dont twist what im saying glenn. im not saying they cant make over 600 engine bhp and you know it. but 670 bhp at 1.5 bar is ridiculous tbh hence ive shown a dyno dynamics dyno graph for 1.8 bar MAKING 646 BHP !!!! 

and what a coincidence the plots youve shown are all DYNAPACK !!!!! LOL

theres a big difference between 1.5 bar and 1.8 bar. 

heres an example of gains ive done with my g-tech. i was shifting early but this is for comparison for boost change for awhp increase. the 3 runs are same day same conditions 30 c heat. 

green is 1.0 bar held no spike 355 bhp

red is 1.3 bar spike 1.2 bar held 369 bhp dyno dynamics rollers in winter 543 fly bhp 461 rwhp

black is 1.6 bar spike 1.4 bar held 398 bhp










so 30 hp gained from 1.2 bar to 1.4 bar 573 bhp. then add 60 hp for 1.8 bar 633 bhp coincidently very close to gtaaaaaars dyno plot. 

1.5 bar on -5s around 590 bhp but more for 2530s as they flow better but 80 hp more mmmmmmmmmmm NO imo.


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

I'm not commenting on the -5 saga but I will say that just because one guy can't/doesn't make X power at 1.5 bar it doesn't mean a different persons engine isn't/won't.

Not all engines are the same and some make considerably more power at a given boost than others.

Rob


----------



## Adam Kindness (Jun 22, 2002)

I thought 600+ was pretty common on -5's! 

We are running 610 (520AWHP) at 1.6bar. Standard heads, cams, and turbo elbows.


----------



## GTaaaaaarrrrrr! (May 4, 2006)

Brings back good memories :thumbsup: Just for the record and as my old car is being used for comparison purposes, that engine had cams (fairly mild profile for driveability) but no headwork whatsoever.


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

Adam Kindness said:


> I thought 600+ was pretty common on -5's!
> 
> We are running 610 (520AWHP) at 1.6bar. Standard heads, cams, and turbo elbows.


Me too, But 260 cams and HKS elbows with 1.4bar....Ran outta injectors to do any more.:thumbsup:


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Scoobs, no one is twisting what you have said, here it is again



> some of the dyno plots for twins on this site are optimistic to say the least imo. over 600 bhp on 2530s or 2860-5s at under 1.5 bar is unrealistic imo.


Now I have given you examples of over 600 hp, and that is no matter how you calculate it.
Your own interpretation of my claimed 670 hp is 615 hp which is still over 600 hp ....
Amerikiwis engine makes even more power than mine, so his is ALSO way over 600hp at the engine no matter how you work it out.
So maybe over 600 hp is possible with 2530's ?
My engine is nothing special, standardish head, standard valves, small cams.
Im 100% sure I could easily make more power.
Gary's car picked up something like 100kws from head and itb mods, so Im unsure why this could translate to other engines ...
For as long as I can remember 2530's have been "the" track car 600hp + hairdryers for RB26's now your trying to tell me this isnt so ?


http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/121101-max-power-not-standard-internals-p.html


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Oh

Beyond The Dyno


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Scoobs, no one is twisting what you have said, here it is again
> 
> 
> 
> ...


im only saying it isnt so at UNDER 1.5 bar imo.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Ok, I understand what you are saying, but surely HKS 's own power rating must mean something ?
They rate them at 320 hp each / so If you assume smack in the middle of their map 1.5 bars ....then 2 would equate to 640hp @ 1.5 bar ?
I have no idea if thats wheel dyno or hub or engine but would think it was engine hp based on airflow.
Surely then an engine should make 600+ on less than 1.5 bar ?


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

scoooby slayer said:


> im only saying it isnt so at UNDER 1.5 bar imo.


Maybe Ive missed something but this seems a bit of a pointless statement.

2530s are extremely happy at 1.5 bar and as long as the motor has been built and mapped right there are absolutely no issues with boost at this level . 
In fact it the boost level thats reccommended and most people run at if they run a higher and lower boost
So IMHO what they produce say at 1.3 is of only passing interest if that


----------



## Skyline_500R (Sep 23, 2004)

I also have the HKS 2530's, standard engine with 264/272 cams.
Mine had 643,1 PS on the engine or 559.2 PS on the hubs on a dynapack with pumpgas.
After even bigger injectors and an extra fuelpump/line o and with the new E85-Biofuel she made 685.3 PS on the hubs at 1.82 bar of boost. 788 PS on the fly.

So I think the 600+ on 1.5 bar is also possible.


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

Skyline_500R said:


> I also have the HKS 2530's, standard engine with 264/272 cams.
> Mine had 643,1 PS on the engine or 559.2 PS on the hubs on a dynapack with pumpgas.
> After even bigger injectors and an extra fuelpump/line o and with the new E85-Biofuel she made 685.3 PS on the hubs at 1.82 bar of boost. 788 PS on the fly.
> 
> So I think the 600+ on 1.5 bar is also possible.


Yup, End of story, game over....:thumbsup:


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

The compressors on GT2860R-5s can flow >300hp a piece happy as on even as low as a bar... its the engine which will be the restriction in terms of cracking 600hp with twins.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Skyline_500R said:


> I also have the HKS 2530's, standard engine with 264/272 cams.
> Mine had 643,1 PS on the engine or 559.2 PS on the hubs on a dynapack with pumpgas.
> After even bigger injectors and an extra fuelpump/line o and with the new E85-Biofuel she made 685.3 PS on the hubs at 1.82 bar of boost. 788 PS on the fly.
> 
> So I think the 600+ on 1.5 bar is also possible.



omg 800 bhp now LOL :bawling:


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

i give up just keep using dynapacks and enjoy the big hp numbers lol


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Dynapacks read a little higher that Dyno Dynamics (which are lower reading than most dynos), but there are actually big numbers to be had from those turbos - especially with a good setup and something like E85 on your side. 

Dynapacks are brilliant, there numbers can be higher than SOME rolling road dynos but anyone who gets hung up on that kind of thing are a bit silly anyway... to beat a dead horse - they're just a tuning tool and don't tell you engine power.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Lith said:


> Dynapacks read a little higher that Dyno Dynamics (which are lower reading than most dynos), but there are actually big numbers to be had from those turbos - especially with a good setup and something like E85 on your side.
> 
> Dynapacks are brilliant, there numbers can be higher than SOME rolling road dynos but anyone who gets hung up on that kind of thing are a bit silly anyway... to beat a dead horse - they're just a tuning tool and don't tell you engine power.


no sillyness here i know of a yb that made 502 bhp on a superflow engine dyno then made iirc 505 bhp on a dyno dynamics rolling road. simple as that really.


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

scoooby slayer said:


> i give up just keep using dynapacks and enjoy the big hp numbers lol


Ok, I'm a bit late into this and dont have enough hands-on with 2530/2560's to comment on the numbers.
However...theres all this whoo-ha about dynapak Vs rolling road etc..... Surely Dynapak is the more accurate of the two and a bit more 21st century compared to rollers. I can see how a Dynapak COULD show a higher figure IF it was using the same method of calculating transmission inefficiency. I would suspect however that the manufacturers would have known this and used different calculations and/or removed the tyre slip compensation figure as it is no longer required.

Bottom line...as long as the Dynapak uses corrected equations and NOT the same ones as the rollers then I can see no problem. 
Why is it that folks get so arsey over HP figures?? The old 'my rollers are better than your rollers' just smacks of playground mentality..

TT


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

playground mentality wtf are you talking about ? 

all these big numbers are dynapack and im not disputing dynapack must be the best tuning tool as the car is physically fixed to the machine so 100 % control. 

the guy from ireland on here is again over 600 engine bhp at 1.3 bar on 95 ron on a dynapack ! the figures are taken seriously as there banded around on here all the time but there ott imo.


----------



## Max Boost (Apr 9, 2010)

scoooby slayer said:


> no sillyness here i know of a yb that made 502 bhp on a superflow engine dyno then made iirc 505 bhp on a dyno dynamics rolling road. simple as that really.



WTF are you talking about?

You sit there bleating on about Dynapacks reading high, then you post about a Dyno Dynamics rolling road that reads higher than an engine dyno ffs.

In my book, either the hallowed Dyno Dynamics is reading high or you just don't know wtf you are talking about.


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

SS Ok so now you are fine with ....................

dynapak being the most useful for tuning and

2860 5s making 600 and 

your not disputing that peoples cars have made the claimed figures

So exactly whats left to contest (that any one else cares about ? )

If someone posts that their car made xxxbhp on a dynapak it seems you still dont think they should be posting this as its misleading because it would have been less on another dyno 

One could equally say it the other way round.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Max Boost said:


> WTF are you talking about?
> 
> You sit there bleating on about Dynapacks reading high, then you post about a Dyno Dynamics rolling road that reads higher than an engine dyno ffs.
> 
> In my book, either the hallowed Dyno Dynamics is reading high or you just don't know wtf you are talking about.


what 3 hp thats as close as its gonna get ffs. 

wtf are you talking about how is a dd reading high when the figures are lower ? 

i think its you that doesnt know what your talking about tbh surely you mean the dd must be reading low to make the dynapack look accurate ?


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

RSVFOUR said:


> SS Ok so now you are fine with ....................
> 
> dynapak being the most useful for tuning and
> 
> ...


what are you talking about i havnt said there not the best for tuning. 

and no i dont believe it would ever be more on a dd compared to a dynapack. 

your trying to make out im moving the goal posts and im not im not gonna explain it again


----------



## Max Boost (Apr 9, 2010)

scoooby slayer said:


> what 3 hp thats as close as its gonna get ffs.
> 
> wtf are you talking about how is a dd reading high when the figures are lower ?
> 
> i think its you that doesnt know what your talking about tbh surely you mean the dd must be reading low to make the dynapack look accurate ?



OK Einstein

Add 'whatever percentage' to the Dyno Dynamics figure to account for transmission losses, is that figure now higher than the Superflow engine dyno figure?


----------



## konvert (Jun 22, 2010)

So who's dad will win in a fight between scooby slayers and glens?


----------



## kismetcapitan (Nov 25, 2005)

A: raw horsepower numbers, not corrected, are the only values worth mentioning
B: using a dyno to get hp numbers is putting the cart before the horse. It's a tuning tool; the horsepower readings are, or should be, an afterthought.
C: who cares if 2530s are above/below 600 brake horsepower, hub horsepower, wheel horsepower? Depends on the tune. Is it fast enough? I should say so - very, very few cars exist on the road that could give a well-tuned 2530-equipped car any trouble at all. Not only are you untouchable on the street by anything other than a hyperexotic, you have a setup that's good for fast lap times on a circuit, and enough driveability for running errands, picking up the kids, etc.

So, to clarify, what exact is the problem with 2530 turbos again?


----------



## Max Boost (Apr 9, 2010)

Well, according to somebody who claims to know somebody in the 'Ford scene' (yawn), 2530's don't make the power people claim they do. 

In future, perhaps Skyline tuners should check with Ford tuners before posting their results and dyno plots. I never knew the 'Ford scene' was such a world authority on tuning cars 

Every day's a school day!!


----------



## godzirra (Sep 16, 2009)

The fight between dads should be:
2530 rb26 vs T04Z rb30


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Max Boost said:


> Well, according to somebody who claims to know somebody in the 'Ford scene' (yawn), 2530's don't make the power people claim they do.
> 
> In future, perhaps Skyline tuners should check with Ford tuners before posting their results and dyno plots. I never knew the 'Ford scene' was such a world authority on tuning cars
> 
> Every day's a school day!!


mr shead actually so yawn all you like but hes a highly respected tuner in the uk. :chairshot


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

konvert said:


> So who's dad will win in a fight between scooby slayers and glens?



i cant take your post serious as your sig is a shim :bawling:


----------



## Max Boost (Apr 9, 2010)

scoooby slayer said:


> mr shead actually so yawn all you like but hes a highly respected tuner in the uk. :chairshot


I suppose there are no highly respected Skyline tuners in the UK then?

Tell Mr Shead to expect a flood of Skyline owners as future customers, seeing as he obviously knows more than the likes of those in the Skyline tuning community. 

Just how many RB26's with 2530's has he built and mapped?


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Max Boost said:


> I suppose there are no highly respected Skyline tuners in the UK then?
> 
> Tell Mr Shead to expect a flood of Skyline owners as future customers, seeing as he obviously knows more than the likes of those in the Skyline tuning community.
> 
> Just how many RB26's with 2530's has he built and mapped?


hes only advised me on the dyno stats when i asked.

yet again you assume things i havnt said.

believe it or not i dont care but my belief is as stated all this talk of 600 + bhp at low boost levels is not accurate engine figures imo.


----------



## DrGtr (Jul 18, 2009)

Does anyone have the results from a 2.8 liter with 2530s hp or dyno?


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

kismetcapitan said:


> A: raw horsepower numbers, not corrected, are the only values worth mentioning
> B: using a dyno to get hp numbers is putting the cart before the horse. It's a tuning tool; the horsepower readings are, or should be, an afterthought.
> C: who cares if 2530s are above/below 600 brake horsepower, hub horsepower, wheel horsepower? Depends on the tune. Is it fast enough? I should say so - very, very few cars exist on the road that could give a well-tuned 2530-equipped car any trouble at all. Not only are you untouchable on the street by anything other than a hyperexotic, you have a setup that's good for fast lap times on a circuit, and enough driveability for running errands, picking up the kids, etc.
> 
> So, to clarify, what exact is the problem with 2530 turbos again?


i havnt said theres anything wrong with them ? i havnt said they dont feel fast etc but its been proven that dd rollers give within 1% engine power figures of a superflow engine dyno. yet compared to dynapack readings for similar spec the figures are considerably higher consistantly which leads me to believe that dynapack gives elevated engine power figures.


----------



## konvert (Jun 22, 2010)

scoooby slayer said:


> i cant take your post serious as your sig is a shim :bawling:


its ok, im one of the many on here who cant take your regular spouting of drivel serious either.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

konvert said:


> its ok, im one of the many on here who cant take your regular spouting of drivel serious either.


ok she man lol


----------



## konvert (Jun 22, 2010)

scoooby slayer said:


> ok she man lol


good comeback. real thought through. alot like this thread and your bases of evidence.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

konvert said:


> good comeback. real thought through. alot like this thread and your bases of evidence.


thats rich coming from you !

what drivel ffs ? ive stated an engine has been on an engine dyno and dd was accurate to the engine dyno ffs.

why anyone would call themself konvert with a pic of a tranny is behond me !


----------



## Adam Kindness (Jun 22, 2002)

I have to agree with Scooby Slayer on some of the graphs posted on here... I cant see 600+ on 1.2bar-1.3 being 'correct'


----------



## Madden (Nov 14, 2004)

Who cares about 2530's ITS ALL ABOUT SINGLE TURBOS :chuckle: hahaha


----------



## konvert (Jun 22, 2010)

scoooby slayer said:


> thats rich coming from you !
> 
> what drivel ffs ? ive stated an engine has been on an engine dyno and dd was accurate to the engine dyno ffs.
> 
> why anyone would call themself konvert with a pic of a tranny is behond me !


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

What a lot of hoo-har lads!

The dynapack is a great tuning tool, but like any dyno you need to understand what's going on to properly interpret the results.

The dynapack doesn't give inflated results over a DD, just different ones. With no tyre losses, and no traction problem you will certainly get a higher hub figure in say 3rd gear than a DD roller dyno gives at the wheels in 4th gear. The drivetrain losses overall are very much influenced by the tyres, but above all else wheel speed. The viscous losses all add up, and they are not subject to variation with increased torque, but very much affected by increased speed. SO all your windage losses in the box, viscous losses in the box, the wheel bearings, the shafts, friction losses in all the shaft seals, hysteresis losses in CV boots and tyres, deflection losses in the steel belts in the tyres, you get the picture. The loss due to transmitted torque is just a portion of the overall loss from the crank to the tarmac.

Depending on the gear, the losses could be as much as 130hp on a roller dyno, or as little as 60hp in a 600fwhp car. Easily enough to make the results not directly comparable. And that's before you even look at lack of consistency in the running of the cars, some dynos have inexperienced operators and they will introduce further variables such as different gear choice, ramp rate, RPM range, strapping technique (very influential on a DD dyno) and ambient conditions.


Since the hub dyno doesn't give a flywheel figure, and nobody has a table of experimental data to add to hub figures, the simple route to forum peace to ignore them and stick to the facts.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

^ +1, nicely said.

Not sure why anyone is trying to estimate flywheel figures from a hub/rolling road dyno - thats just pointless. You aren't measuring flywheel power so its just an educated guess. A flywheel power estimate from a DD is going to be higher than a reading directly from the hubs, as well.

Hub dynos are going to be more consistant than a DD given there are not so many variables, so the last thing is the perceived "inflated figures" which is just a matter of opinion.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

We were discussing the possibility of making 600+ hp with 1.5 bar or under with -5's or 2530's, full stop ....

We are aware that different types of dyno's will read differently as will the same dyno's if they are out of calibration.

Imo there is no doubt over 600hp is not unreasonable to expect at less than 1.5 bar.
The makers of the things state this as well...

Clearly everyone will have different interpretations of what they think...
Scooby do you build and tune race engines for a living ?

Having seen with my own eyes the results on Gary's engine (900hp on MODIFIED 2530's) and seen the power gains made from unshrouding the valves and some simple spindle mods, I can say without any doubt whatsoever 600+ hp is piss easy on 98 petrol , no matter what type or model dyno you want to choose.

Having seen Carls SR20 make more power with less boost (home made variable cam timing) after similar mods theres pretty much no point in even arguing about it ....

Just because you cant do it ort hav'nt seen it doesnt mean no one else can....

Now Im sounding like a cracked record, Amerikiwis engine makes similar power to mine (On Soichis Dyno) and is well over 600 hp even if you want to run it up on a wheel dyno....
So it might not be my claimed 670 but its way over 600 I think over 700 would be pretty easy with some head mods etc:

Seans also seen massive numbers and he is talking rolling road dyno's.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

So you are talking an effective 600hp @ engine?? Anyone arguing with that figure on GT2530s or GT2860R-5s needs to get out more. Around 700hp should be doable, with the right setup - or closer to 800 with E85...


----------



## mitch32 (Apr 5, 2008)

Where did you make you biggest gains (timing, cam overlap, boost, etc...)? I'm making 470rwhp on a mustang dyno (built motor, built head, ported head, ported exhaust manifold, gt2860-5, tomei poncams, 1000cc injectors).


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Adam Kindness said:


> I have to agree with Scooby Slayer on some of the graphs posted on here... I cant see 600+ on 1.2bar-1.3 being 'correct'


im glad someone can see what im saying :thumbsup:


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

GT-R Glenn said:


> We were discussing the possibility of making 600+ hp with 1.5 bar or under with -5's or 2530's, full stop ....
> 
> We are aware that different types of dyno's will read differently as will the same dyno's if they are out of calibration.
> 
> ...


get it right glenn, you have regularly claimed 670 crank 550 awhp and 120 bhp loss from hub to engine is ridiculous isnt it. 

you have said yourself there rated to 640 hp and that has to be at around 1.8 bar looking at a -5 comp map so how can the turbos be flowing more than there capable of at low boost ffs. 

i maintain caterpillar earth movers as my main living transmissions are farmed out but i rebuild the engines, final drives and cross shaft, steering assemblys hydraulics etc. done a few petrols when i was younger but tbh i can afford to pay a tuner now hence having my rb built by tr.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

*Sigh*

Im over this

Edited, seriously I cant be bothered ...


----------



## b19bstgtr33 (Oct 12, 2005)

all i can say to this is bin your rolling roads and get true engine hp by using an engine dyno. more accurate and kinder to the engine by far.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Pavlo said:


> What a lot of hoo-har lads!
> 
> The dynapack is a great tuning tool, but like any dyno you need to understand what's going on to properly interpret the results.
> 
> ...


paul i dont think its alot of hoo haa mate, hub figures cant be compared to wheel figures because hub figures will be more i get that, but i have seen time and time again the projected fly figures thrown around this forum and they are consistantly higher than any roller figures. 

if nobody is takin them seriously then why is it posted all over : well im making 610 at only 1.3 car, and im make 670 at 1.5 bar etc. 

they are taken seriously and i think there inflated compared to a true engine dyno figure.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

b19bstgtr33 said:


> all i can say to this is bin your rolling roads and get true engine hp by using an engine dyno. more accurate and kinder to the engine by far.


this has been done and dd came within 1% accuracy of the engine dyno.


----------



## b19bstgtr33 (Oct 12, 2005)

at the end of the day if your car is fast and running right you dont need pub talk figures cos thats all they are. i see this all the time on certain turbos running far to much power than there rated for but thats just how it goes. all reading are different. 

i am not getting into this but i will say that it seem a little high on just that boost. but if he went on other rr's it will no doubt be different every time.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Stop crapping on about dyno's
Ive given you so many examples yet you still crap on about dyno's
Even if my car didnt make 670 hp IT STILL MAKES A SHITLOAD MORE THAN 600 / Which you have stated is impossible

Id put my money on What Soichi or Carls opinion is way before anything you had to say ...


Also Wrong
Godzilla Motorsport:yno Comparisons


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

1320ft, weight, mph, minimum possible whp, job done.


----------



## rb30r34 (Jun 30, 2008)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> 1320ft, weight, mph, minimum possible whp, job done.


Ah you beat me to it, I was going to say that, haha


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Stop crapping on about dyno's
> Ive given you so many examples yet you still crap on about dyno's
> Even if my car didnt make 670 hp IT STILL MAKES A SHITLOAD MORE THAN 600 / Which you have stated is impossible
> 
> ...



whatever glenn no crapping on just like to see realistic figures not pub talk ones 

it was only a few weeks ago on chaz thread you were saying he hasnt made very good power which was coincidently a dyno dynamics again, seems obvious to me.


----------



## Skyline_500R (Sep 23, 2004)

1st it is about the turbo's then it's about dyno's, then it's about who has the larger pen...

With the right modifications the turbo make at least what HKS tells you, even more.

I like my car and the response the turbo's give and the figures I can tell at the pub.

I am out of this discussion.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Thats right Rob, 10.2 R32 standard weight ,
Ive already said it but it doesnt seem to register....

You would have had to had been living under a rock for the last ten years not to know 2530s make over 600hp /
For goodness sake how long ago was the mines car now ....


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Thats right Rob, 10.2 R32 standard weight ,
> Ive already said it but it doesnt seem to register....
> 
> You would have had to had been living under a rock for the last ten years not to know 2530s make over 600hp /
> For goodness sake how long ago was the mines car now ....


havnt said they dont make over 600.


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Thats right Rob, 10.2 R32 standard weight


You didn't say the mph but I presume around 132-134 and @ 3400lb on a real clean run you need around 590-610whp to do 10.2s at that kind of mph.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Apparently its impossible , so It really doesnt matter ....


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Apparently its impossible , so It really doesnt matter ....


grow up glenn ffs the point im making is theres some crazy shown power outputs at low boost levels, how have i said its impossible for 10.2 ? look at madden hes done 10.7 already at just 550 awhp and a 10.3 is looking in site.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Scoobs,
All you have said from the outset is, In your opinion its impossible to make 600+ hp with less than 1.5 bar boost.

Robs says it isnt
Lith Says it isnt
Theres half a dozen others who have said it isnt

Is it possible you might not be right ?

I have seen an engine that went from 460 kws at the wheels (yes yes on a hub dyno) to 540 kws at the wheels, with no more boost at all ....only some cylinder head mods, and when more wind was shoved in went to 560 kws.

I also seen Carls SR20 make more power from less boost ....

Constant harping back to the rolling road being the only accurate method to calculate engine hp is silly.
And stating they read lower than a hub dyno is correct.
Because its really hard to get consistant numbers off one when the connection between the brake and the power is done using a massive rotating knurled flywheel thats driven off the friction between rubber and steel, under differing compression loads.
The easiest way to get around this variation is to make the machine read hard...as a lot of the time the connection between the power you are trying to measure and the means it has to work it out is so badly coupled together ....

Are you honestly 100% sure that hub dynos dont read right ? and that rolling roads are wrong ? but as you have only had lots of exposure to one then thats all there is too it ?

You have 1 example of a engine dyno vs a rolling road and because they were close , base all you assumptions on that example.

I know 2 cars that have run low tens with less than 1.5 bar ....
How is that possible ?


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

The dyno debate is relavent as it means that someone getting 540hp at the hubs might be claiming 750hp at the flywheel which is wildly optimistic! So if we're having a debate about power potential and figure we should at least be comparing apples with apples, or at least apples+oranges=apples!

2530s should be able to manage 600+, and as for 1.5 bar verses 1.8 bar (for example) that's down to engine efficiency, and it's easy to come across a very efficient overall setup that will make more of the boost. However the absolute max power available will not change that much, you'll just hit it at lower boost.

RPM, the only replacement for displacement!


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Scoobs,
> All you have said from the outset is, In your opinion its impossible to make 600+ hp with less than 1.5 bar boost.
> 
> Robs says it isnt
> ...



as for the dyno from what mark has said and the consistency in the dyno figures my thoughts are still the same. its to consistent the higher hub figure to wheel figure to be just a coincidence. 

im not disputing more power can be made from less boost given different engine spec and tuning. 

i understand dynos can be dodgy there was one near me that notoriously over read by alot. but its something mark has found with a few engines that well operated dd rollers have been v close to engine dyno figures. 

and tbh i onpened the thread only saying i dont think 670 bhp is possible at 1.5 bar. hence i searched and found gtaaaaars plot as a comparison. 

im not saying there crap i think there great i have them on my own car and its awesome, i just dont think they make as much power as people think not at the low boost levels. 

i think madden is a prime example of how it doesnt take huge power to get the times down. just lots of tweaking and practicing with 550 awhp and hes in the high 10s and tumbling. 

i guess we will have to agree to disagree  :thumbsup:


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

OK, how about looking at it this way - as a rough and not overly optimistic rule of thumb a turbo on normal pump gas (non ethanol, "Premium style", with a good tune and a good setup) will make around 10hp per lb/min of compressor flow.

A single GT2860R-5 compressor will flow over 35lb/min at 1.5bar (roughly pressure ratio 2.5 on this compressor map). It stands to reason that around 700hp @ engine would be doable with two of the things without resorting to fancy fuels.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Lith said:


> OK, how about looking at it this way - as a rough and not overly optimistic rule of thumb a turbo on normal pump gas (non ethanol, "Premium style", with a good tune and a good setup) will make around 10hp per lb/min of compressor flow.
> 
> A single GT2860R-5 compressor will flow over 35lb/min at 1.5bar (roughly pressure ratio 2.5 on this compressor map). It stands to reason that around 700hp @ engine would be doable with two of the things without resorting to fancy fuels.


in twin format on a 2.6 never in a million years imo. looking at it like that they would make over 600 bhp at 1 bar LOL.

i have run a big single on a yb with pretty big cams and some port work that was rated to 500 bhp but i only managed 472 at 2.2 bar, im not saying 500 wasnt doable but it needs a well specced engine and thats on a single, you will never make a single turbos full potential on a twin set up surely. 

imo on or just slightly to the right of the dotted line that runs through the centre of the map is close to what they make on twin set up. 

each turbo is only fixed to 1300 cc displacement aswell.


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

The turbos will easily flow the required air, it's more a question of whether the engine will process that amount of air; you can only push in what you can readily get out.

A YB is not an RB, not by a long shot.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Pavlo said:


> The turbos will easily flow the required air, it's more a question of whether the engine will process that amount of air; you can only push in what you can readily get out.
> 
> A YB is not an RB, not by a long shot.


i know the engines are different paul im just saying its not just a case of sticking on a 500 hp turbo and you will get 500 hp. 

i remember you and tweenie telling me that around 600 hp is about right at 1.5 bar.


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

Yes you're stop on about turbos not always making the power, I see it all too often from the turbos I purchase from (insert your supplier here) that's "going to make 500hp" and see it making 440hp, to people that have Imprezas that should be 360hp all day long and struggle to make 330hp. But every now and again you see a result that's remarkable.

I've just mapped an R34 with Poncams and some Power Enterprise (IHI based) turbos, it made 568hp at the flywheel with about 1.35-1.4 bar at peak power. So a little more boost and maybe some headwork or wilder cams and you're looking at 600hp or there abouts.

If tuners or enthusiast all went about things with an attitude of "this is impossible, and not worth trying" no progress would ever be made. Only through some carefully thought out plans and the occasional leap of faith (AKA crazy idea) do we see the really good stuff happen that people everywhere want to see.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

scoooby slayer said:


> in twin format on a 2.6 never in a million years imo. looking at it like that they would make over 600 bhp at 1 bar LOL.
> 
> ...
> 
> each turbo is only fixed to 1300 cc displacement aswell.


So what you are actually saying is that an RB26 will not make 600hp on 1.5bar full stop - which makes the GT2860R-5/GT2530 thing something of a red herring?

I know plenty of people who have made the kind of power Garrett turbos are "rated to", and sometimes more. Depends on fuel, the overall setup etc. Heat Treatments ran the fastest time ever set for a GTR on a single turbo rated to 1100hp.


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Pavlo said:


> Yes you're stop on about turbos not always making the power, I see it all too often from the turbos I purchase from (insert your supplier here) that's "going to make 500hp" and see it making 440hp


That is quite often not the turbo's fault though, the ENTIRE combination has to be right to get the best out any given turbo.



Pavlo said:


> If tuners or enthusiast all went about things with an attitude of "this is impossible, and not worth trying" no progress would ever be made. Only through some carefully thought out plans and the occasional leap of faith (AKA crazy idea) do we see the really good stuff happen that people everywhere want to see.


Your bang on there mate!! I like to get a little crazy myself from time to time, lol.

Rob


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Lith said:


> Heat Treatments ran the fastest time ever set for a GTR on a single turbo rated to 1100hp.


I agree, we ran 7.2 @ 181mph on a 1000-1100hp turbo with the boost turned down!!

Rob


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> That is quite often not the turbo's fault though, the ENTIRE combination has to be right to get the best out any given turbo.
> 
> Rob


Yes that is the point I was trying to make really.

The problem is (for me) that everyone looks around and spies the very best result for a given setup and then that is "the standard" where in reality it's the upper end of the scale. But to reach it you need all the bells and whistles that people often overlook or omit as they cut corners. Each bit plays a part and together they all add up to make the whole.


----------



## creedonsr20det (Aug 6, 2008)

just saw this thread.

Jesus.

scooby slayer..u need to introduce new hobbies into your life.seriously man..

Who cares if somebodies car makes more power than another car with similar set up or vica versa,versa vica whipidy whoop.bla bla bla..

gt2860-5s/2530s are rated 640ps..so around 625/630bhp.On a proper engine with proper mapping they will make that.Full stop.With an aggresive 
map(higher than average ignition advance) they will make more.

Max efficency with these blowers is 1.5/1.6 bar.After that.. in the famous words of tweenie rob..they wont make much more power,just increased torque hence why the car will feel faster.

Power figures totally depend on the person mapping..there use of ign timing etc. less boost with increased ign advance can result in a higher bhp figure than the same engine mapped with more boost with the timing retarded.

Can 2860-5s/2530 make 600+ at 1.5bar or under?? YES they can...FULL STOP.

And the fella from Irelands engine on here made the figures it made at 1.4kgs boost.. so just under 1.4bar not 1.3 bar.

If your car blows ur mind everytime u drive it then you should be happy.Im happy !

Do horsepower figures really matter that much??No. If your making 200hp less than another car with the same set up then ya they matter..whats going on.

But if the hp difference between 1 car is 20/30 more/less than the other ..who cares !


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

No worries Scoob, I was hoping it was going to be an educational thing, but got a bit off the track.
Sorry, twins rated at 320 ea will make 640 on an rb ...you can pretty much guarantee twice the hairdryer rating ...
Im already very familiar with the comp maps , and I cant be ass'd soundling like a cracked record anymore.

All good
Just to add salt to the wound, With a chopper plate / link g4 valve & spindle mods Ill be looking at an easy 450 kws at the wheels ....


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Just to add salt to the wound, With a chopper plate / link g4 valve & spindle mods Ill be looking at an easy 450 kws at the wheels ....


Awesome and to back that awkw up, you just need a low 10 and 135mph, should be easy aye


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

GT-R Glenn said:


> No worries Scoob, I was hoping it was going to be an educational thing, but got a bit off the track.
> Sorry, twins rated at 320 ea will make 640 on an rb ...you can pretty much guarantee twice the hairdryer rating ...
> Im already very familiar with the comp maps , and I cant be ass'd soundling like a cracked record anymore.
> 
> ...


theres no wound to put salt in im affraid just inflated figures 

i should soon have some plots of a freshly tuned high power engine for a comparison i have power plots for. 

but as said we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

creedonsr20det said:


> just saw this thread.
> 
> Jesus.
> 
> ...



i dont need another hobby mate got too much to do already busy busy busy :bawling:

im not gonna broken record it anymore but the point im trying to make is in this thread. the hp figures do matter as include you, glenn, myself etc the engine figures get banded around the forum frequently and hub power is not wheel power.


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

scoooby slayer said:


> but as said we will have to agree to disagree.


:thumbsup: That is you disagree with pretty much everyone else 

You need to take a chill tablet and realise that this is a site for people with an obsession for power ; what do you expect us to discuss - how comfortable the standard seats are?

Engine power is important to us (thats why people drive RB26s) and posting dyno results is therefore a natural thing . 

You will notice that on this site NO-ONE on here ever says my cars got xxx bhp without a dyno run - If they try to they are torn to shreds

And anyone who posts their figures takes time to say exacly how it was measured - atf/ath/atw and usually gives the dyno it was mapped on .
So these are not are claims but facts and are accurate on that day on that dyno in that way 

What else ffs do you expect people to post 

Sorry but it iseems to me that you are the only one who reads extra into peoples posts

If I wanted to know the power ATW on a whizz-whazz dyno Id take it to a whizz-whazz dyno . so I certainly dont need you to tell me it would be 50 hp down.

Your constant referral to dynapak readings etc appears to be simply a way of trying to prove the 600 bhp point (which youve lost about 20 to one)


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

RSVFOUR said:


> :thumbsup: That is you disagree with pretty much everyone else
> 
> You need to take a chill tablet and realise that this is a site for people with an obsession for power ; what do you expect us to discuss - how comfortable the standard seats are?
> 
> ...


i havnt lost anything theres nothing to win or loose just my thoughts on accuracy tis all. 

its all about accuracy for me, even speed wise i have gps for accurate speed measurement. 

and what the hell is a whizz whazz dyno ffs :blahblah:

im not reading no more into posts than what they are and dynapack is consistently higher for the hundreth time. if you dont like it or dont agree then stop posting ffs ! how can 120 bhp loss from hub to flywheel be accurate ffs ! i love my gtr as everyone else on here does but please or offend i just say what i think. 

i guess when i have time il have to do my own little test on same day same conditions. 

i respect that you dont agree though and thats fine :thumbsup:


----------



## creedonsr20det (Aug 6, 2008)

120 loss from hub to fly? whos car was this? dynapack?

mine was 527 at the back axle..dynapack calculated 605.9 engine power. 79 bhp loss.so 13 percent. thats realistic.

dynapacks are 0.01 percent accurate at the hubs. +/- 5% at the engine.

Look at the tuners that use dynapacks..there all pretty much up there with the best. Dynapacks dont give spoof figures.

abbey m/s(built rocket ronnies multiple totb winning 33)
thor racing
mgt racing
TDP(fastest skyline in ireland)
Pj motorsport
and so many more..


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

creedonsr20det said:


> 120 loss from hub to fly? whos car was this? dynapack?
> 
> glenns car.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

creedonsr20det said:


> 120 loss from hub to fly? whos car was this? dynapack?
> 
> mine was 527 at the back axle..dynapack calculated 605.9 engine power. 79 bhp loss.so 13 percent. thats realistic.
> 
> ...


im not saying those tuners arent building and tuning some of the fastest cars on the uk roads. but be honest do you think you would notice if your car was 558 bhp or 606 bhp ? either way its still going to be a very quick road car. 

i didnt pluck the 558 from thin air i calculated it from what i believe is the correction from hub to wheel then back to flywheel. 

i know everyone on here wants to shoot me down in flames and thats fine, the only way i can know for sure is my own tests which i intend to do once the machine repairs and harvest is done and i have more time. :thumbsup:


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

scoooby slayer said:


> i didnt pluck the 558 from thin air i calculated it from what i believe is the correction from hub to wheel then back to flywheel.


What you believe?:nervous:

Santa?
Aliens?
The Tooth Fairy?

:flame::flame::flame::flame:


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Sub Boy said:


> What you believe?:nervous:
> 
> Santa?
> Aliens?
> ...




what i believe to be correct yes. 

santa and tooth fairy too old for that but aliens id hope theres some form of other life in the universe. 

oh and heres a :chairshot


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

If you are going to quote my post and reply to it I would hope that you do read it first and then reply to what I have said .


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Look, the dyno variation thing was done on this site years ago ....
At the end of the day they will all vary.
And mustang dyno's read even harder but strangely havnt been mentioned
Im still claiming that 600+ hp at the engine is very realistic with less than 1.5 bar on an Rb26
There are at least half a dozen threads discussing power losses and how to calculate them from dyno types and hub or wheel hp

At the end of the day, there may well be some imflated power figures from some people here.
I really dont give a dam how much power my engine produced....but as far as I can tell from someone very well respected in NZ for producing giant killing results, he says its making 417 kws at the wheels on his dyno ...

I guess I should have said, well FFS Carl thats 560hp at the wheels, and some guy in England says thats a load of bollocks because dynojets would say it was only making 500 !!
So get your shit together and buy an older technology far less accurate dyno .....

TBH like I have already said 450 kws would be easy, now knowing what we know.
Regardless of what dyno type, even taking the worst possible scenario of 60hp difference is still miles over 600hp at the engine.

Even if I took my engine over to Marsh's and ran it up on the engine dyno, Im sure there would be someone saying . yeah but that type of engine dyno is renouned for reading high ....

Scooby, would power rating from injector duty cycle work for you ?
You know if you max out 550's would it be fair to say thats close to 550 hp at the engine ??


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

RSVFOUR said:


> If you are going to quote my post and reply to it I would hope that you do read it first and then reply to what I have said .


????? 

i dont know how well you read english but ive replied ????


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Look, the dyno variation thing was done on this site years ago ....
> At the end of the day they will all vary.
> And mustang dyno's read even harder but strangely havnt been mentioned
> Im still claiming that 600+ hp at the engine is very realistic with less than 1.5 bar on an Rb26
> ...


rating from injector duty is dependant on tune isnt it glenn. im maxing 660ccs well at 93 % peak anyways but im nowhere near 660 bhp. and thats been 3 pro maps on different dynos aswell.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Actually that would be around 612hp ...


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

My Quote:
Originally Posted by RSVFOUR 
If you are going to quote my post and reply to it I would hope that you do read it first and then reply to what I have said . 

Your reply

????? 

Enough said

A discussion is when people read each others posts and reply to the post not just carry on with the same rant. 

So if you are not actually going to read peoples posts properly before replying this is no longer a discussion and theres no point to it.






This is no longer a discussion


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

> im not reading no more into posts than what they are and dynapack is consistently higher for the hundreth time. if you dont like it or dont agree then stop posting ffs ! how can 120 bhp loss from hub to flywheel be accurate ffs ! i love my gtr as everyone else on here does but please or offend i just say what i think.


Where did you read this then Scooby?

We quote 35 bhp in 2wd from hubs to Flywheel and 70bhp 4wd from hubs to flywheel, we have run a few cars over the 7 years we have had our Dynapack. But a car will read different BHP/TORQUE on different days due to ambient temp,humidty. Does a car consume more BHP the more Torque/bhp it uses , items flex the more work they need to do so is there more friction , you can talk about this for ages , all been done before.

The Bhp conversion from wheel/hub to flywheel has been done some many times on forums, I even been told that cars dont drive without wheels so Dynapacks dont give the correct figures, but a dyno is just a tuning tool in my eyes, it does give a bhp figure but this can be fudge in a number of ways what gear the car is run in, length of run, rate of acceleration and on a roller dyno tyre pressures can make a difference.


With regards injector duty versus BHP, what if a car is running non stock fuel pressure (higher or lower) or tuned to run lean on the dyno run? pure guess work in my opinion.


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Abbey M/S said:


> With regards injector duty versus BHP, what if a car is running non stock fuel pressure (higher or lower) or tuned to run lean on the dyno run? pure guess work in my opinion.


100% agree, well over 1000whp in 4wd is possible with 1000cc injectors.

Unless your all on the same dyno on the same day, or at the same dragstrip on the same day, alot of what your all on about is pointless.

Rob


----------



## Jason abz (Oct 3, 2002)

Something i have picked up on...........does anyone else think that GPs cannot possibly be the most accurate way of measuring speeds etc due to latency of sat comms?
Was discussing this with someone last week and i wouldn`t `trust` GPS for the most accurate speed measurements.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

> With regards injector duty versus BHP


I was only asking to see if scoobs had a similar opinion about this as he does with dynos
I run more than factory rail pressure for my 700's to gain more headroom

So my 560 atws + 70 would be 630 crank ...on Abbeys dyno
Still over 600


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

Surely the most important figure will alway be that at the wheels? No one can calculate with total accuracy back to a true flywheel figure. The only way that can be done is to take the engine out! The rest can only ever be theory. I can't see the reasoning about knowing one figure and then trying to guess another.


----------



## creedonsr20det (Aug 6, 2008)

anyone remember the dyno sheets leffan on here posted up a couple of months back? 670 engine power with 2530s @1.6 bar measured on an engine dyno similar to the type simon norris uses..engine dynos are accurate.

@ Abbey motorsport..how does adding 35rear hub and 70 4 hubs to calculate engine power make sence? in that case a 400hp 4hub power car is running 470 engine and a 1000hp 4 hub car is only running 1070 at the engine???

Surely adding a certain percentage to the hub figures to calculate engine figures is more accurate than just adding either 35 or 70 to hub figures wheather the car made 100 or [email protected]?that system doesnt make any sence to me.wheres the consistancy??

if you added say 13percent..a 100hp 4 hub car would be 113 at engine. a 1000 hp 4 hub car would be 1130 at the engine.that system has to be more realistic..

although i think the percentage loss also changes as the car goes up in power..


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

RSVFOUR said:


> My Quote:
> Originally Posted by RSVFOUR
> If you are going to quote my post and reply to it I would hope that you do read it first and then reply to what I have said .
> 
> ...


well goodbye then !


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Abbey M/S said:


> Where did you read this then Scooby?
> 
> We quote 35 bhp in 2wd from hubs to Flywheel and 70bhp 4wd from hubs to flywheel, we have run a few cars over the 7 years we have had our Dynapack. But a car will read different BHP/TORQUE on different days due to ambient temp,humidty. Does a car consume more BHP the more Torque/bhp it uses , items flex the more work they need to do so is there more friction , you can talk about this for ages , all been done before.
> 
> ...


sorry mark i didnt realise those were your figures for flywheel conversion, they look much more in line with the reality of removing the wheels imo. there certainly alot lower than some dynapack losses ive seen on here.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

GT-R Glenn said:


> I was only asking to see if scoobs had a similar opinion about this as he does with dynos
> I run more than factory rail pressure for my 700's to gain more headroom
> 
> So my 560 atws + 70 would be 630 crank ...on Abbeys dyno
> Still over 600




i too run slightly above rail pressure 3.5 bar base pressure just to squeeze that bit more which it needed for 1.45 bar boost held to 7800 rpm maintaining 11.4 afr just before the limiter at upto 95 % duty in winter. 

please stop harping on about over 600, over 600, over 600 ive already said id make it around 615 bhp in this thread, 615, 630 is still a long way off 670 ! which is what the thread was actually about if youd read it that i think 670 bhp at 1.5 bar is unrealistic. 

and refering back to the other thread which is what you are actaully doing iirc i was talking of under 1.5 bar ie creddon at 1.35 bar boost on 95 premium fuel also at over 600hp.

from what mark has said though maybe its just the correction factors that are out which still equades to the roughly 10 % for putting the wheels on.


----------



## creedonsr20det (Aug 6, 2008)

scoooby slayer said:


> and refering back to the other thread which is what you are actaully doing iirc i was talking of under 1.5 bar ie creddon at 1.35 bar boost on 95 premium fuel also at over 600hp.



excellent mapping,with a top ecu using a brilliant tuning tool(dynapack) and a really well built engine. thats all thats too it scooby slayer.

check this out..its gna really piss u off! croydon tuned 800fly horses @1.9 bar with gt2530s !!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGGt_BsY5j0


----------



## Adam Kindness (Jun 22, 2002)

creedonsr20det said:


> excellent mapping,with a top ecu using a brilliant tuning tool(dynapack) and a really well built engine. thats all thats too it scooby slayer.


do you have any 'on the road or track' performance figures to back it up?

1/4mile times/TV's


----------



## creedonsr20det (Aug 6, 2008)

no. It aint easy when your living in a country that doesnt have one single proper strip..would love if there was.


----------



## chippy (Mar 14, 2008)

check this out..its gna really piss u off! croydon tuned 800fly horses @1.9 bar with gt2530s !!!!!!

All very well but what dyno did they use lol :runaway:


----------



## creedonsr20det (Aug 6, 2008)

chippy said:


> check this out..its gna really piss u off! croydon tuned 800fly horses @1.9 bar with gt2530s !!!!!!
> 
> All very well but what dyno did they use lol :runaway:



ud never guess..slayers favourite!! Dyno dynamics:runaway::runaway:

CRD - Croydon Racing Developments, Sydney - your car racing and JUN/Japanese performance specialist


----------



## Max Boost (Apr 9, 2010)

**** sake, 9 pages of this shit now :lamer:



Look, there are only two figures that matter, on any ****ing dyno!!

The first figure is the one you have measured before tuning starts.

The second figure is the one you've reached after you've finished tuning.

Hopefully you'll see a gain on the first figure, which means you haven't just wasted X amount of pounds at X tuner. 



Turbos *will* make power beyond what they are rated at. That has been proven time and time again.





Bored now........................I'm off for a beer 




Have fun, and play nice


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

Max Boost said:


> **** sake, 9 pages of this shit now :lamer:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you Boosted using a different ID? That's exactly the sort of thing he'd have said!


----------



## Max Boost (Apr 9, 2010)

TAZZMAXX said:


> Are you Boosted using a different ID? That's exactly the sort of thing he'd have said!



Surely my post wasn't that aggressive sounding? :chuckle:



Ask a mod to check the IP's. If I'm pulling a fast one they'll be the ones to hang, draw, and quarter me 



It's nice here in the beer garden, and Boosted says "Hello Tazz", lol. 

Sorry, never met the guy/girl


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

creedonsr20det said:


> excellent mapping,with a top ecu using a brilliant tuning tool(dynapack) and a really well built engine. thats all thats too it scooby slayer.
> 
> check this out..its gna really piss u off! croydon tuned 800fly horses @1.9 bar with gt2530s !!!!!!
> 
> YouTube - Autostyle R34 GTR - Ignition DVD


my opinions are completely unchanged. if that is genuine then a hell of alot of £££ and r and d must have gone into that engine on pump fuel. its on single fuel pump so must be a very special pump.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

creedonsr20det said:


> ud never guess..slayers favourite!! Dyno dynamics:runaway::runaway:
> 
> CRD - Croydon Racing Developments, Sydney - your car racing and JUN/Japanese performance specialist


dd are my favourite yes but any make of dyno is open to operator munipulation if they are of the mind set to do so.


----------



## creedonsr20det (Aug 6, 2008)

i know man.im with you on this one.i was only throwing it out there for a laugh to be honest !

800bhp from 2530s is taken the piss out of taken the piss


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

I'd believe 800hp @ flywheel from GT2530s on the right fuel and setup.


----------



## Max Boost (Apr 9, 2010)

Lith said:


> I'd believe 800hp @ flywheel from GT2530s on the right fuel and setup.



Careful Lith, if Scooby Slayer hasn't seen it first hand and confirmed it he'll say you're talking shit................... cos his mate Mark told him so. Hearsay is gospel these days :thumbsup:


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Haha  The reason I make comments like that (when I have a reasonable clue it could be done) is its neat to quote yourself if or when someone actually does it  

Something which needs to be remembered about turbos is that the power level ratings of Garrett turbos are usually made from ESTIMATING the amount of power you could make with a safe tune on a reasonable setup using pump gas from the amount of air the compressor can move at 1bar of boost. Change any of those variables and things change, change the lot of them and the original power rating is not a heap more than a thumbsuck.

The power rating is most definitely not a magical barrier the turbo suddenly starts choking itself at when it somehow works out the engine is making xxx hp


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Scoob, you must be NXTWATS brother or something ...

Move the goal post's again ...

You were quite clear in saying over 600 hp with 1.5 bar of boost on a rb26 with 2530's is unrealistic ...



> Remember. we are discussing the fact that you say, 600hp at the engine cant be achieved with -5 or 2530's on 1.5 bar boost....


 <<<<<<<<<<<<< SEE


You actually said it several times.
Thats what we have been arguing from the outset ...



> I'd believe 800hp @ flywheel from GT2530s on the right fuel and setup.


Yep...
Easily.
My engine still runs a standard head (port matched) and small cams, and seems to make over 600hp (actual exact figure unknown as it hasnt been on an engine dyno) LOL
But just for the sake of the conversation lets say 620hp.
I would say a serious investment in head work / bigger cams / c16 / different ecu / more boost = easy 800hp
If you read the power gains from retuning on c16 and doing nothing else on the donor R33 gtr drag car they built in au and reindexing the plugs, theres serious amounts of power do be had ...


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

> @ Abbey motorsport..how does adding 35rear hub and 70 4 hubs to calculate engine power make sence? in that case a 400hp 4hub power car is running 470 engine and a 1000hp 4 hub car is only running 1070 at the engine???
> 
> Surely adding a certain percentage to the hub figures to calculate engine figures is more accurate than just adding either 35 or 70 to hub figures wheather the car made 100 or [email protected]?that system doesnt make any sence to me.wheres the consistancy??
> 
> ...


This has been done so many times, we been using this conversion for a long time and are happy with it. Agree more BHP should lose more power but I would say only around 2/3% on top of the 35/70bhp figures.

We run a 33 GTR in 4wd it made 300 hub bhp removed front diff it then made 335 rear hub bhp. So thats why we quote 35bhp per axle bhp loss, I will wait to be slated re this but we are happy with this figure.


The problem is even a worn out CWP will use more BHP a cold day with a non warmed up car will use more BHP.

The long and short of it is the dyno is a tuning tool , but people like to shout about there BHP figures to beat there chests.

We have been around tuning GTRs a lot longer than a lot of people on here and are happy with the figures we quote. (used to use rollers and used to worry about the run down figures quoted using MAHA run down system)


Mark


----------



## creedonsr20det (Aug 6, 2008)

ya i know who ye are and i know ye know everything worth knowing about skyline tuning but to be fair the method ye have for hub to engine power calculations doesnt make sence..not to me anyway.I agree with u in respect to adding 35 rear hub to 4 hub.that does make sence.

I dont know the exact percentages but I was under the impression that when nismo originally worked out the drive train losses for dynapack when it was introduced they gave as much as a 20% loss on say for instance a 300 4 hub car. so 360 fly. Then the percentage decrease as hub power increases.. up to as much as 10% on higher power hub cars. e.g an 800 4 hub car would be around 880 fly.this system makes more sence to me.! i suppose the argument has little to no importance anyway ! 

as for 800bhp from 2530s..its just stupid. unrealistic unrealiable power.why try squeeze 800bhp from 2530s when it could be achieved alot easier and more reliably using a 2.8 with gt-rs's. I think george (gtaaaaaarr) on here got about as much as there is to be had out of 2530s on hes 34.tweenie rob built and mapped 27.just under 650 [email protected] but he also mapped it for vp import and added spray.genuine 10 sec car with 4.1 diffs.not too sure what figures he got on the vp import map. George?


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Lith said:


> I'd believe 800hp @ flywheel from GT2530s on the right fuel and setup.


lol


----------



## rb30r34 (Jun 30, 2008)

Based on what you guys think is possible with gt2530's etc, what would you expect me to make with an rb30 with hks gtrs's?

The motors not yet back together so im interested to see what you guys would think it should make, then we will see what it does make.


----------



## godzirra (Sep 16, 2009)

rb30r34 said:


> Based on what you guys think is possible with gt2530's etc, what would you expect me to make with an rb30 with hks gtrs's?
> 
> The motors not yet back together so im interested to see what you guys would think it should make, then we will see what it does make.


Marko is the man for this.

550awhp with mega torque.


----------



## creedonsr20det (Aug 6, 2008)

@1.5 bar on pump fuel id reakon between 595 to 615 rear wheel hp and as godzirra said..mega torque.:smokin:


----------



## Max Boost (Apr 9, 2010)

Perhaps I'd better ring Mark Shead and ask him....wait a minute, that's Scooby Slayer's job


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Max Boost said:


> Perhaps I'd better ring Mark Shead and ask him....wait a minute, that's Scooby Slayer's job


knob :chairshot


----------



## Max Boost (Apr 9, 2010)

scoooby slayer said:


> knob :chairshot



Hahaha............................so what did he say?


----------



## rb30r34 (Jun 30, 2008)

godzirra said:


> Marko is the man for this.
> 
> 550awhp with mega torque.


Im hoping for closer to 550kw at all four. Do you think that is possible?


----------



## godzirra (Sep 16, 2009)

rb30r34 said:


> Im hoping for closer to 550kw at all four. Do you think that is possible?


I suspect for 550awkw Rob will advise to go T04Z.

I have also just bought a T04R 0.96 a/r kit which I plan to install a T04Z cartridge. Might have some results in Nov/Dec.

edit: Actually, isn't 550awkw more like T51 or gt42 territory?


----------



## rb30r34 (Jun 30, 2008)

godzirra said:


> I suspect for 550awkw Rob will advise to go T04Z.
> 
> I have also just bought a T04R 0.96 a/r kit which I plan to install a T04Z cartridge. Might have some results in Nov/Dec.
> 
> edit: Actually, isn't 550awkw more like T51 or gt42 territory?


Na 780wkw's is gt42 territory. GTRS's are rated to 400ps each. Im confident we will make at least that.

HO R34 makes around 550kw atw with GTRS's.


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

rb30r34 said:


> Im hoping for closer to 550kw at all four. Do you think that is possible?


What does the Hioctane R34 make? I would think you would be close to that. That would be 50-100hp more than a RB26 with -5's so would make sense:thumbsup:

[Waits for Scoob to flame me]

:flame::flame:


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Rb30 R34
Theres a few really good threads already on hairdryers for 30's
go Search
Advanced search
2530
R32/33/34
Enter
Theres a few about rs's -10's etc:

Scoob, you cant be serious now, dissing 800 being possible from 2530's.
If you can get a 2.5times power gain in an atmo engine from fuel / cams / headmods / etc: etc: why would you think it couldnt be done with a force fed Rb26 ?

Let me guess
Marsh will never hold the world record for an atmo dragster
NZ will never beat the yanks in the america's cup if we use a carbon fibre hull
A kiwi could never invent bungy jumping
A kiwi could never invent the hub dyno ..

You just sit around sipping your wine telling everyone whats impoossible, and we'll just get on with it ...

Didnt Sean post a dyno sheet off a rolling road from that R33 they had, over 600hp at the wheels / 2530's ???
Or was that engine ?


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

RB30R34, what fuel are you going to be using? Manifolds? Other engine mods? And what dyno/who is tuning it?


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Rb30 R34
> Theres a few really good threads already on hairdryers for 30's
> go Search
> Advanced search
> ...


deadly serious.

dont drink wine.

i dont know what your going on about nz will never do this, kiwis couldnt do this and that, thats your words not mine.

all i know of kiwis is weve had a few work on our farm bailing through harvest as they have come over here to work and are cheap labour. 

over and out glennis


----------



## Max Boost (Apr 9, 2010)

scoooby slayer said:


> all i know of kiwis is weve had a few work on our farm bailing through harvest as they have come over here to work and are cheap labour.



Once again, it sounds like the kiwis are doing what you can't 

Did they bring any compressor maps with them?


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Ok, Well I guess clearly you are in the same league as David Vizzard and Patrick Head, but I still say, 800hp is possible with 2530's given enough money and time.

Its not rocket science or rocket surgery if you are an idiot from Austrlia, Im not reinventing the wheel.

Lets assume the only accurate dyno in the world (or on your block in the UK) calculates engine power at 600hp with 1.5 bar boost and pump gas, as thats pretty much all we have been discussing.
Do you really think a retune with C16 or if we are talking "ultimate power" methanol (or even a nitromethane / propolyne oxide brew) wouldnt make more power ?
Everyone knows theres 10hp at the wheels with a two into one pipe mod
Everyone knows theres up to 30hp at the wheels doing away with the cas and running a chopper plate off the crank.
So that 650 ish hp allowing for drivetrain loss with the same fuel / boost / cams / everything.

I would imagine up to a 10% efficiency improvement with a good guy and a flow bench.
So thats 700hp and we still havnt wound up the boost, reindexed the plugs or put any funny fuel in it ....
I would expect 60 easy maybe 80hp at the engine from c16
So thats now 780 hp

Still havnt got to the top of the compressor map yet ...

C'mon pal , just because you think it cant be done doesnt make it so.


----------



## rb30r34 (Jun 30, 2008)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Rb30 R34
> Theres a few really good threads already on hairdryers for 30's
> go Search
> Advanced search
> ...


I know mate, ive read them. I was just interested in the opinions of a few characters on here.


----------



## rb30r34 (Jun 30, 2008)

Lith said:


> RB30R34, what fuel are you going to be using? Manifolds? Other engine mods? And what dyno/who is tuning it?


98 for track, probably q16 for drags. Stock manifolds. Extensive head work by kelfords. RIPS forged rb30. Dry sump. Jason will be tuning it on his dyno.


----------



## rb30r34 (Jun 30, 2008)

Sub Boy said:


> What does the Hioctane R34 make? I would think you would be close to that. That would be 50-100hp more than a RB26 with -5's so would make sense:thumbsup:
> 
> [Waits for Scoob to flame me]
> 
> :flame::flame:


Around the 550wkw mark.


----------



## godzirra (Sep 16, 2009)

Didn't the Hi-octane run 'custom' -5s? That could be anything since a -10/gt-rs is just a -5 with a bigger comp wheel.

Same with Glenn's buddy than ran 900hp on 'custom' 2530s. If I remember right,
the dynograph looked just like big turbos...spooled late-ish with a big peak.

On rb30s, rockabilly (gt40) and marko (gt-rs) both have big fat midranges and around 700+hp. As does several of Rob's rb30s that run t04z.

Marko was talking about a rb30 with alldone-up setup made 832hp or something with gt-rs.

I think my point is, you can make your turbos do whatever you want if you got the know how... Looking fwd to see your results :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Yep, 560 kws at the wheels, and thats an Rb26 
The GTrs would be my pick for twins on a 30 for sure, -10's i think the same ?
Ive consistantly said that for a long time and still do think they would be demon on even a mild 30.
I would expect mid 500+kws at the hubs without too much drama.
It all comes back to power or response.
Thats what governs the hairdryer


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Max Boost said:


> Once again, it sounds like the kiwis are doing what you can't
> 
> Did they bring any compressor maps with them?


oh yes thats something to be proud of, are you so thick you dont even see they are only employed because there cheaper


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Ok, Well I guess clearly you are in the same league as David Vizzard and Patrick Head, but I still say, 800hp is possible with 2530's given enough money and time.
> 
> Its not rocket science or rocket surgery if you are an idiot from Austrlia, Im not reinventing the wheel.
> 
> ...


glenn your going all round the houses to justify your ott power figure. 

standard turbos on pump fuel same as the link posted to so called 800 bhp.

as for a turbo it only needs a bigger front housing and comp wheel and it will move more air. 

of coarse an engine can be run on higher octane fuel and then run more ignition and boost to make more power but how is that relevant. 

pretty bored of this now tbh imo the hp of your car you have banded around this site is innacurate and ott, and on the back of that figure you have told people there not making the right power lol. 

just carry on with your 120 hp loss from hub to flywheel  lol


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Scoob, I dont think that comments entirely fair,
Both Carl and Soichi are very well known very well respected engine builders and tuners.
My claimed power is based on what the hub dyno tells me, 417kws at the hubs.
I have also provided several dyno sheets.
I never said anything other than my engine is pretty basic and makes xxhp.

The comment was made that 800hp should be possible and you poo poo'd that, without making any qualifications...
I have said its possible and explained why, you now come back with , yeah but Im talking pump gas .../ Im unsure how getting the most out of an engine is now not relevant.

The internationally accepted conversion from hub to engine is something like +10 / .86 
Thats not something I invented .....maybe you should get out more ?
Have you actually googled hub to engine conversion ?




> as for a turbo it only needs a bigger front housing and comp wheel and it will move more air.


WRONG again , seriously you shouldnt comment of stuff you clearly know didly about
You can power port turbo's with abrasives and they will flow more air ...without changing internals.


Next time I see Mark (the guy who invented the hub dyno) Ill mention your thoughts to him ...


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Puma Race Engines Technical Guide - Measuring Engine power - engine dynos and rolling road dynos

Oh Dear Scoob ....


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Scoob, I dont think that comments entirely fair,
> Both Carl and Soichi are very well known very well respected engine builders and tuners.
> My claimed power is based on what the hub dyno tells me, 417kws at the hubs.
> I have also provided several dyno sheets.
> ...


i should get out more ! you should take a look at yourself pal. whos talking about altering turbos in any way ? cause im not. 

of coarse its not relevant its still modification to move more air. 

you carry on trying to justify it as long as you like but its a load of old poo poo as you would say and thats the end of it for me. 

you carry on in dreamland and il carry on in reality thank you very much.


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Nice link Glenn..lots of good stuff in that. 

TT


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Puma Race Engines Technical Guide - Measuring Engine power - engine dynos and rolling road dynos
> 
> Oh Dear Scoob ....


LOL

oh dear glenn did you even read it lol

and i quote "the biggest losses in the drivetrain are the wheels and tyres"

and your projected engine power is based on those losses !

and i quote

"Hub dynos will show a fairly constant percentage loss of flywheel bhp regardless of engine size or power of about 7% for fwd cars and 9% for rwd ones."

cant see 4wd in there so assuming you would be 10 % loss that would need 603whp to equad 670 fwhp. LOL


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

sound exactly like a broken record player


----------



## rb30r34 (Jun 30, 2008)

godzirra said:


> Didn't the Hi-octane run 'custom' -5s? That could be anything since a -10/gt-rs is just a -5 with a bigger comp wheel.
> 
> Same with Glenn's buddy than ran 900hp on 'custom' 2530s. If I remember right,
> the dynograph looked just like big turbos...spooled late-ish with a big peak.
> ...


I was under the impression that HO started with custom -5's, then changed to gtrs's. Ill do some more research.

I cant wait to see the results either mate, shouldn't too far away now.


----------



## rb30r34 (Jun 30, 2008)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Yep, 560 kws at the wheels, and thats an Rb26
> The GTrs would be my pick for twins on a 30 for sure, -10's i think the same ?
> Ive consistantly said that for a long time and still do think they would be demon on even a mild 30.
> I would expect mid 500+kws at the hubs without too much drama.
> ...


Mines not very mild so it should be a bit of fun. Should be game on pretty low in the rev range too. Cant wait!


----------



## Max Boost (Apr 9, 2010)

scoooby slayer said:


> oh yes thats something to be proud of, are you so thick you dont even see they are only employed because there cheaper



LOL what a plonker. 

Perhaps the Kiwis are the only ones that don't know what a dick you are, and that's why they work there. Obviously the natives know all about you and that's why they swerve you 


Who mapped your combine harvester, was it your idol Mark?

FPMSL


Stick to worrying the livestock, there must loads of cows to impress with your bull


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Max Boost said:


> LOL what a plonker.
> 
> Perhaps the Kiwis are the only ones that don't know what a dick you are, and that's why they work there. Obviously the natives know all about you and that's why they swerve you
> 
> ...


edited, im not gonna get personal on a forum.

if you want to get personal dont be a keyboard warrior do it to my face.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Well, as far as Im concerned this discussion was about whether or not 600+ hp is achievable using 2530 and petrol with less than 1.5 bar boost.
There seems to be a lot of documented examples which say it is.

You appear to be the only person who says it cant be done.

This is all a bit silly now very much like NXTWATS threads about his mates car.
Everythime someone else says something the original discussion is alterd and then Im blamed for changing the subject ?

800hp is doable with the 2530's and Ive explained how I think it could be done, bearing in mind there was no actual specifics from Lith's post.
No one every said 800hp with less than 1.5 bar using 96 pump gas, did they ?
No but you interpret the post to "assume" that...

Im also quite offended by your suggestion I have somehow inflated my engine hp figures to somehow impress people or some other unknown reason, as I really dont give a toss how much power it makes, I still get beaten by evos and subarus .....and its nothing to do with power.

All I have ever said is heres the dyno sheet, this is what all these dynos tell me, this is what most people use to calculate engine from hub hp....
But apparently thats still not good enough for you ...

If you read that webpage some more you will see the power conversion which appears to be the exact same one I have posted on here for years .....

My cars been on these dynos
Soichis Hub
Turbo Vehicles Hub
Possum Bourne Motorsport Rolling Road
Rotary Power Rolling Road
E&H Motors Hub
Torque Performance Rolling Road

So I guess they are* all *wrong ....

Ok ..

If you can be ass'd read these

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/7100-600-bhp.html

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/717-dyno-runs.html

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/10855-skyline-transmission-losses.html

Escpecially the one from Hugh about Guys modified R34 on 2530's
544 hp at the wheels on a rolling road with 1.4 bar ?
Isnt that impossible ?


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Well, as far as Im concerned this discussion was about whether or not 600+ hp is achievable using 2530 and petrol with less than 1.5 bar boost.
> There seems to be a lot of documented examples which say it is.
> 
> You appear to be the only person who says it cant be done.
> ...


all i said when i opened the thread was 646 bhp at 1.8 bar is a realistic engine figure, and 670 at 1.5 bar seems ott.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

scoooby slayer said:


> edited, im not gonna get personal on a forum.
> 
> if you want to get personal dont be a keyboard warrior do it to my face.


Could be argued that you started moving things to personal when you spoke of Kiwis being cheap labour. There are a few of us here.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Lith said:


> Could be argued that you started moving things to personal when you spoke of Kiwis being cheap labour. There are a few of us here.


its not a dig just an observation, ive met a few who have worked on the farm, hard workers too. i assume they can work cheaper because of the exchange rate and the money probably works out well paid at a dollar equivelant hourly rate.


----------



## Madden (Nov 14, 2004)

This thread is getting long now 

So far it has turned from 2530's to a dyno slagging match and then into Kiwis being cheap labour???????????????????????????????????????


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

> all i said when i opened the thread was 646 bhp at 1.8 bar is a realistic engine figure, and 670 at 1.5 bar seems ott.


oh ok, no worries
I can remember thinking 1200hp from a 1500 was impossible ...

I would be supprised if you couldnt make 700+ on E85 on an engine dyno.
Thats with a few more mods, like I have already suggested, but still undfer 1.5 bar (22pounds)
Anyway ....


----------



## Max Boost (Apr 9, 2010)

scoooby slayer said:


> edited, im not gonna get personal on a forum.
> 
> if you want to get personal dont be a keyboard warrior do it to my face.



You have PM.

Sort a meet out and we'll take this away from the forum.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

GT-R Glenn said:


> I would be supprised if you couldnt make 700+ on E85 on an engine dyno.
> Thats with a few more mods, like I have already suggested, but still undfer 1.5 bar (22pounds)


Yeah, I actually wouldn't mind trying to twist someone with a basic twin GT2860R-5 setup arm into allowing a "test session" with some E85  I think there is a good chance people might be quite surprised....


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

I ask Marshy next time we are yapping ...
Hes built a few I believe ....


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Actually we should talk Chris into "donating" (reads we will tune it for you for free) his new RB 30 and we could "borrow" Tony's engine dyno and try and blow it up ....


Works for me ...


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Actually we should talk Chris into "donating" (reads we will tune it for you for free) his new RB 30 and we could "borrow" Tony's engine dyno and try and blow it up ....
> 
> 
> Works for me ...


:runaway::runaway:

You had me right up to the ...."And try and blow it up":chairshot

Anyway, The Missus want's a winter holiday on the Whit Sundays....So I'm having to curb the spending a little at the mo.

I don't think I will have the fuel system to run E85....I would need the ID2000's and some extra fuel pumps.


----------



## Skyline_500R (Sep 23, 2004)

In Holland we have done the purple Bee-R334 with the 2860-5 on E85.

Mine has also been on a hub-dyno and I posted the result (685,3 PS) (2568cc and the 2530's)

But if someone says it can't be done because of whatever reason he thinks for himself, what is the point then?


----------



## creedonsr20det (Aug 6, 2008)

what boost were u running to get 685 ps from the e 85? does it run well?


----------



## Skyline_500R (Sep 23, 2004)

creedonsr20det said:


> what boost were u running to get 685 ps from the e 85? does it run well?


1.8 bar, these turbo's didn't like more then this boost.
1.8 on E85 is cool


----------



## creedonsr20det (Aug 6, 2008)

yea id say its pretty cool arite man! Iv been thinkn of mapping for e85 for a while but i would have to rise my engines compression and re do my whole system for it to work to its full potiential. I have e85 available in my closest fuel station.

What compression and fuel system do u have?


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Skyline_500R said:


> In Holland we have done the purple Bee-R334 with the 2860-5 on E85.
> 
> Mine has also been on a hub-dyno and I posted the result (685,3 PS) (2568cc and the 2530's)
> 
> But if someone says it can't be done because of whatever reason he thinks for himself, what is the point then?


Nice! 685ps at hubs or estimated flywheel? As others said, any more info on setup?


----------



## Jason abz (Oct 3, 2002)

Max Boost said:


> You have PM.
> 
> Sort a meet out and we'll take this away from the forum.


----------



## Skyline_500R (Sep 23, 2004)

Lith said:


> Nice! 685ps at hubs or estimated flywheel? As others said, any more info on setup?


685,3 PS on the hubs on a Dyna pack so at the rear hubs.
Anyone can count and ad the losses to calculate what they want to get the flywheelfigure  For us we added 15% losses for flywheel PS.



creedonsr20det said:


> yea id say its pretty cool arite man! Iv been thinkn of mapping for e85 for a while but i would have to rise my engines compression and re do my whole system for it to work to its full potiential. I have e85 available in my closest fuel station.
> 
> What compression and fuel system do u have?


Standard compression, so 11 ish.
2 in tank fuel pumps (tomei) and Greddy fuelrail with 1200cc injectors.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Nice, I calculate 805ps at engine using 15pc! Regardless of what the losses would be its high enough power to back up a few comments made here.


----------



## cleethorpes (Sep 30, 2008)

RSVFOUR said:


> Well the 5s discussion is back again (the old ones are the best  )
> 
> opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:
> 
> ...


my lm made 511 @ 1.3bar with hks cams and little else. Am told N1 pistons and crank but without opening her up who knows..


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Sub Boy said:


> :runaway::runaway:
> 
> You had me right up to the ...."And try and blow it up":chairshot
> 
> I don't think I will have the fuel system to run E85....I would need the ID2000's and some extra fuel pumps.


Hahaha  What is the setup you have? Are you on 264s and GT2860R-5s, like many seem to go for - but with a 3litre? What size injectors and pumps?

Something like that on 1.6bar on an RB30 would be ballastic on E85, or even E30 to be fair.


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

Lith said:


> Hahaha  What is the setup you have? Are you on 264s and GT2860R-5s, like many seem to go for - but with a 3litre? What size injectors and pumps?
> 
> Something like that on 1.6bar on an RB30 would be ballastic on E85, or even E30 to be fair.


Yeah, I'm running 2860-5's (But these will one day be Hybrid-ized with larger compressors as Glenn has talked about) and Poncam 260's (These will be upgraded at the same time to 280's)
I have some ID1000's that will go in with the new motor, I am running a Nismo in tank pump, But may have to look at an under car surge tank with one or two 044 pumps later.

How much money was I spending again....?:nervous::nervous:


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Nice, the next stage sounds scary then!  E85 with ID1000s and the bigger pumps on the current setup would be pretty nifty, too...


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

> Mine has also been on a hub-dyno and I posted the result (685,3 PS) (2568cc and the 2530's)


Awesome, 1,8bar is getting up there a bit.
Yeah that would have to be somewhere between 750 and 850 hp at the engine (scoob )
I would be reluctant to run that much boost for any amount of time, due to the effect on the longevity of the hairdryers, but still be pretty dam good for 1/4mile stuff or shortish hillclimbs etc:

Well Done


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Lith said:


> scoooby slayer said:
> 
> 
> > Lith said:
> ...


Hehehehe


----------



## Skyline_500R (Sep 23, 2004)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Awesome, 1,8bar is getting up there a bit.
> Yeah that would have to be somewhere between 750 and 850 hp at the engine (scoob )
> I would be reluctant to run that much boost for any amount of time, due to the effect on the longevity of the hairdryers, but still be pretty dam good for 1/4mile stuff or shortish hillclimbs etc:
> 
> Well Done


The dynoguys use a 15% correction, so they gave me a 788.1 PS and 847.9 NM of torque dynosheet.

Anyone know how much KW this all is at the rear hubs?


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Roughly 504kw @ hubs


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

I use my own method, but apparently its wildly inaccurate and unreliable so from now on Ill guess to the nearest + / - 100 hp ...




lol

ps 500kws at the (insert hub or wheel) is serious power by anyones standards / especially mid sized lowmounts


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

rb30r34 said:


> Im hoping for closer to 550kw at all four. Do you think that is possible?


I reckon on E85 it would be in the area of, or Q16 possibly even more.


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

Anyone got a Compressor Flow graph for a -5,s ,HKS don,t supply anything for the 2530,s but maybe Garrett do , this will help if they will flow the BHP some people quote?


----------



## zell (Nov 23, 2007)

Abbey M/S said:


> Anyone got a Compressor Flow graph for a -5,s ,HKS don,t supply anything for the 2530,s but maybe Garrett do , this will help if they will flow the BHP some people quote?












http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/catelog/Turbochargers/GT28/GT2860R_707160_5.htm


----------



## infamous_t (Jul 9, 2007)

Edit: Beaten by the Zell man


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

mmmm kinda answer a few questions. even at 3.0 pressure ratio (2bar) running right up to the choke line is 35lb/min of air x 10 to make estimated BHP of air per turbo.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

^ I said that quite early in the thread  It goes past 35lb/min, the choke line is actually the cut off point Garrett use for plotting compressor efficiency so isn't as absolute as the surge line, and 10hp/lbmin makes a few assumptions... including that you are using normal petrol. 

Using E85 on decent boost levels you can get a fair bit more power out of the exact same amount of airflow, and as such changes things a fair bit.


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Exceeding advertised compressor map flow figures is extreemly common on a good engine with good fuel.

I have a saying "build it as good as you can with what you have, tune it as well as you can and it will make what it makes"

Then get it to the strip to prove the power you "claim" with mph. end of.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> Exceeding advertised compressor map flow figures is extreemly common on a good engine with good fuel.


It goes beyond that really - you can be receiving the same about of flow from the compressor and make more power than another car, this all comes down to the engine's ability to turn the air/fuel mixture into power which reaches the tranmission. The 10hp/lbmin is just a thumb suck (I usually use 9.5 just to be safe) and there are lots of things which come into it, when you change fuel you don't end up with more lb/min than is advertised - you just use it better  

I've seen people get easily 20% power gains switching to E85 from normal PULP, which would turn the 10hp/lbmin into 12hp/lbmin. When you are looking at a compressor map which has over 35lb/min (x2), it starts getting quite interesting.


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

Lith,

agree totally with what your saying with regards E85 or even Methanol. These fuels make Power very easily above what Gasoline can give.

It is just a good start to see what sort of bhp worth of air the blower will flow.

Mark


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Yeah oops, I realised what you were getting at after I responded - makes perfect sense.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

In a perfect world, its really good to be able to run more than 1 map in your brain.
Pity d-jetro's cant. (unless datalogic which is still an addon)
A road tune on 96 + a race tune on e85 or c16 would be really good.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Get a G4 Link!  

We did an E30 tune for a mates R32 GTSt with an unopened RB20DET at the end of last years drag season which was fun. A real budget 295kw @ hubs setup running 20psi just using Mitsi VR4 Injectors and a Walbro fuel pump with a $500 T3/T4 and a GTS Link. We kept both the BP98 and the E30 tune as separate files and it only takes a few minutes to load the BP98 or the E30 tune in there... changing fuel without contaminating the mixes is far trickier.

The cost to make such an R32 = 2/3rds of f all. Giving "400kw" GTRs a run for their money with said setup, priceless  Alcohol makes everything better.


----------



## infamous_t (Jul 9, 2007)

Lith said:


> We kept both the BP98 and the E30 tune as separate files and it only takes a few minutes to load the BP98 or the E30 tune in there... changing fuel without contaminating the mixes is far trickier.


A few guys over here in Oz have used flex-fuel sensors to change maps from 98 to e85 automatically, worth looking into


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Haha that's way beyond what a GTS Link would be capable of, but next step for me will involve a G4 and an ethanol blend tune so might have to have a look into that


----------



## Heat Treatments (Jan 11, 2009)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> Exceeding advertised compressor map flow figures is extreemly common on a good engine with good fuel.
> 
> I have a saying "build it as good as you can with what you have, tune it as well as you can and it will make what it makes"
> 
> Then get it to the strip to prove the power you "claim" with mph. end of.


Exceeding advertised compressor map flow figures is extreemly common on a good engine with good fuel.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

^ Haha yeah you guys and Andre (with DOCILE) have completely made a mockery of hp claims for turbos, its great  Its probably not much over the compressor flow though, its just the fuel and engine setup using the air the turbo can move REALLY well.


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

Have too agree with Lith
The original claim of 600 not possible............................ is now truly laid to rest.


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

Yeah we run over the flow rate of the turbo on JB GTST, good old alcohol fuel.


----------



## cleethorpes (Sep 30, 2008)

I seriously doubt the mapping in mine, 511bhp on 1.3 bar with hks cams 550cc injectors is a good amount... but a tuning shop running a 2wd dyno who simply remove the fuse to disable the fwd on an r33 cannot be fully trusted. I spoke to the garage and would not name them as I'm not gonna sling mud in that respect.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Ermmm...
Thats a real no no on a 33


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Ermmm...
> Thats a real no no on a 33


Absolutely............. Im not even sure that you can do it.


----------



## cleethorpes (Sep 30, 2008)

RSVFOUR said:


> Absolutely............. Im not even sure that you can do it.


you can do it..but you shouldn't....

The original uk owner didn't realise, the dealer I got it from didn't notice...and at first I didn't notice, but I do now..


----------



## Skyline_500R (Sep 23, 2004)

There won't go anything wrong if you disconnect the fwd and make it rwd to use the Dynapack on the rear hubs.

It is even fun driving home with rwd and on full boost 

O and btw, mine is also flex-fuel  Link G4 ECU and well mapped with the right mods


----------



## rb30r34 (Jun 30, 2008)

Skyline_500R said:


> There won't go anything wrong if you disconnect the fwd and make it rwd to use the Dynapack on the rear hubs.


Know your facts before you say that. Its only r32 that you can just pull the fuse on.


----------



## Skyline_500R (Sep 23, 2004)

rb30r34 said:


> Know your facts before you say that. Its only r32 that you can just pull the fuse on.


I know the facts sir, if you disconnect the axle to the 4wd the car is rwd.

We done it everytime we went on the dyno.


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

I think he means physically disconnect the front wheel drive (take out the front driveshafts ? )

Mind you that seems a bit of a waste of time to me ( but at least it isnt very stupid) - why not just find a 4wd dyno


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

He means take out the shaft from the transfere case to the front diff.


----------



## Skyline_500R (Sep 23, 2004)

^^ yep that is what I meant  I don't know all the english words, sorry 

Reason why we do this is because the place where we go has only a 2wd Dynapack and they are top guys + it is only 40 miles from home. My tuner goes there allmost every week so mostly time and cooperation with the dyno guys.

But back on topic


----------



## majestic (May 3, 2010)

brian how is your misfire?


----------



## rb30r34 (Jun 30, 2008)

Skyline_500R said:


> ^^ yep that is what I meant  I don't know all the english words, sorry
> 
> Reason why we do this is because the place where we go has only a 2wd Dynapack and they are top guys + it is only 40 miles from home. My tuner goes there allmost every week so mostly time and cooperation with the dyno guys.
> 
> But back on topic


All good, I thought you meant pull the fuse as the earlier mentioned tuner had done. Your right pulling the front shaft is safe as and absolutely fine.


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

majestic said:


> brian how is your misfire?


Well this threads so far off topic ( and a better thread for it ) I guess another tangent wont matter

All sorted traced to a loose connector on the back of the f con , No idea how it became loose but its fine now.

so back to mthe topic...............opcorn:opcorn:


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

> Well this threads so far off topic ( and a better thread for it ) I guess another tangent wont matter


My legs pretty much back to normal now thanks , walking ok with only a slight limp.\

Hows the cats ...


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Tua is looking real fit, here's hoping he knocks Monte the hell out and gives the Americans something to think about


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

Okay, being as though this is so far off topic, here's a little story from the past but does have a slight connection. About 27 or 28 years ago when I was in the second year of my apprenticeship, I worked with a guy (in his 40's) who was into rallying and hillclimbing. Bear in mind, at the time, just about all cars had carburettors, mechanical fuel injection was about but suffered its problems and you only got turbos on some commercial vehicles. He'd recently been to some event and told me there was a Ford Escort RS1800 (BDA engine-twin 40/45 Webers standard?) there and it had been converted to fuel injection and turbo-charged. Apparently the owner just couldn't get it running right and it didn't do very well. My workmates last words on the combination of fuel injection and turbocharging was "It'll never catch on, it's too unreliable!"

Obviously it did and has gone on to inspire great works such as this thread. I admire you guys dedication to the subject but for some it appears to be bordering on obsession. I just want to be able to go quick without having to know what fuel pressure I'm running or what my turbine characteristics are.

Keep up the good work. :thumbsup: Now back on topic eh?


----------

