# GTC tuned GTR with Spec V turbos....numbers will astound you.



## paparazzi (Oct 10, 2009)

Well there really is more in the Spec V turbos than meets the eye. To the tune of 624awhp and 608ft lb of torque!:thumbsup:There was potential for more but Ben said we need to be reasonable as its a stock block and transmission and this is a hot/humid climate.


Those are the preliminary numbers on my GTR after custom etuning by the man himself, Ben, yesterday on the dyno. Still need to do some road tweaking. 

This is my second etune from GTC and once again, its a winner! I personally don't know any other etuner who has this amount of experience etuning in so many different regions/climates and they're very very reasonable with their etuning prices.

The turbos came directly off a Spec V R35 with 5 miles on it and my first driving impressions are that they spool as quickly as, if not quicker than, the Standard ones with the added ability to flow more air up top.

Anyone can sell parts but you guys really know how to bring it all together with a good custom tune.Cheers again Mate, I can't tell you how happy I am with the car. Your etunes, hands down, are the most worthwhile mods so far.


----------



## ChuckUK (Jan 1, 2009)

So you made 624awhp with stock internals yet we have T80 with 598awhp with engine upgrades etc etc, am I missing something ?


----------



## paparazzi (Oct 10, 2009)

Not missing anything. There was room for more, but I won't have wanted to sacrifice reliability.


----------



## [email protected] (May 16, 2003)

no worries 


awesome spec


Mine's ECU (custom mapped by GTC)
Mine's VX Pro Titanium Type II Exhaust
Mine's Type III Titanium Midpipe
Mine's Downpipes
Mine's Wastegate Actuators
Mine's Intake Pressure Rings
Mine's Titanium Intercooler Hardpipes
Mine's Titanium Suction Pipes
R35 Spec-V Turbos (....yes, they are real Spec-V turbos - thanks R4Race!)
Greddy Spec-R Type 6 Intercoolers
HKS Racing Spark plugs HR9
HKS Electronic Boost Controller EVC 6
HKS Digital Knock Amp & A/F Monitor AFK
HKS Racing Suction Intake
HKS 255lph in-tank Fuel Pumps
Willall Racing High Volume Oil Pan
Injector Dynamics 1000cc Injectors
SP Engineering Air Temp Gauges
Samco Xtreme Hoses
Kansai Service Transmission Cooler

Stop
AP Racing J-Hook Rotors (Front & Rear)
Carbotech XP12 f&r pads (track). Endless MX72 f &r pads (street)
Kansai Service Carbon brake cooling guides
Steelbraided brake lines

Turn
Kansai Service Front & Rear (adjustable) Stabilizer Bars
Mine’s Eibach Front & Rear Springs

Roll
Volk VR G2 – High Metal Bronze (1 of 10 sets made according to Sharif)

Carbon
Mine's Carbon Bumper Cover
Mine's Dry Carbon Type I Front Spoiler
Mine's Dry Carbon Type II Bonnet
Mine's Dry Carbon Rear Spoiler Cover
Mine’s Dry Carbon Engine Cover
Mine’s Dry Carbon Rear Diffuser Fins
Password JDM Dry Carbon Trunk
Zele Carbon Sideskirts
Zele Carbon Rear Diffuser
RSW Carbon Gearshift Panel
RSW Carbon MFD Panel
RSW Carbon AC Panel
Custom Carbon Rear Armrest and Speaker Surround





































for those interested in turbo tech. here is comparision between oem vs spec-v vs Mines vs GTC


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

Yes, the 624awhp is on 106 octane race gas unless I'm mistaken. Would love to know what it does on pump gas.

Whatever, very impressive, and also very disappointing the DBA does not use them...


----------



## paparazzi (Oct 10, 2009)

^^ 109RoN (VP MS109) Pump numbers (95RON) coming in due course.

Either way. It's a significant gain for me. On MS109 my GTR on standard turbos did 538awhp. So thats about 80hp jump. I'm pretty sure, looking at the specs on the spec v its capable of roughly 100hp more than the standard turbos


----------



## [email protected] (May 16, 2003)

ChuckUK said:


> So you made 624awhp with stock internals yet we have T80 with 598awhp with engine upgrades etc etc, am I missing something ?



ye you can't compare apples & pears. U.S and UK dyno's, different brands, too many variables.


----------



## Darren-mac (May 13, 2009)

624awhp? Whats that at the flywheel then?


----------



## ChuckUK (Jan 1, 2009)

paparazzi said:


> Not missing anything. There was room for more, but I won't have wanted to sacrifice reliability.


?

If there was room for more and your running a safe tune level then why has T80 who has produced less awhp running a complete engine rebuild ? 

If dynos out, then you can't be producing this or does race fuel make your engine safer ?


----------



## paparazzi (Oct 10, 2009)

ChuckUK said:


> ?
> 
> If there was room for more and your running a safe tune level then why has T80 who has produced less awhp running a complete engine rebuild ?
> 
> If dynos out, then you can't be producing this or does race fuel make your engine safer ?


Not sure what the T80 is bro, certainly an engine build is not needed at 600whp. Fuel will allow you to run more boost and advance timing but we were very low on timing anyway, maybe 17 degrees or so.


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

Race fuel makes the engine safer. There are lots of reasons why, happy to discuss if it is of interest.

I wouldn't compare cars between different dynos, the before/after is what is of value, and even then there are multiple caveats.

Well done on the results regardless!


----------



## paparazzi (Oct 10, 2009)

David.Yu said:


> and also very disappointing the DBA does not use them...


too right David, the tuning game would have changed entirely if they were available on the 2012s. Shame really


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Dynojet are the most famously optimistic of all the US dynos. I used to subtract 20% for a comparable uk value at the wheels.


----------



## _shaun_ (Jan 16, 2007)

Nice figures Shiv! I should be "back" soon, maybe we can meet up:sadwavey:


----------



## LiamGTR (Nov 26, 2006)

Wow those are expensive, why didn't you go for Mines? They are less than half the price and have a higher possible power output going by the posted picture above.


----------



## paparazzi (Oct 10, 2009)

Thanks for that mate! ....was getting a bit frigid in here...


----------



## paparazzi (Oct 10, 2009)

LiamGTR said:


> Wow those are expensive, why didn't you go for Mines? They are less than half the price and have a higher possible power output going by the posted picture above.


Didn't pay that for them...anyone who pays that for turbos should be shot!!

I got them from a spec v owner in the middle east with 5pm on them at a bargain!


----------



## _shaun_ (Jan 16, 2007)

Darren-mac said:


> 624awhp? Whats that at the flywheel then?


Anyone? Roughly??


----------



## asiasi (Dec 22, 2007)

_shaun_ said:


> Anyone? Roughly??


Well using about 24% 4 wheel drivetrain loss,fly estimate would be 770ish.

But i am not sure the R35 loses that much.


----------



## MrGT (Jul 6, 2009)

asiasi said:


> Well using about 24% 4 wheel drivetrain loss,fly estimate would be 770ish.
> 
> But i am not sure the R35 loses that much.


+1 on above

i would of thought it would be more like 720 @ the fly, which still seems alot to me, intrested to see what it makes on pump fuel or down the strip times compared to t80's GTR


Tib


----------



## alloy (Apr 29, 2005)

What a spec, lovely motor!!


----------



## LiamGTR (Nov 26, 2006)

paparazzi said:


> Didn't pay that for them...anyone who pays that for turbos should be shot!!
> 
> I got them from a spec v owner in the middle east with 5pm on them at a bargain!


Oh well if that's the case well done mate  It did sound wierd at 1st but perfect now, well done


----------



## Boosted (Jun 5, 2008)

_shaun_ said:


> Anyone? Roughly??




Nobody knows, it's purely a random number based on guesswork. But as it's the most popular figure at the pub, everybody makes their car sound more powerful than it is. If you want to know flywheel power, then measure it at the flywheel.

The only figure that counts is the one where it was measured.

LOL @ adding 24%


----------



## paparazzi (Oct 10, 2009)

I have to say though, I won't be surprised if drivetrain loss on this car is more like 10-12% as opposed to the classic AWD percentages.

As I said before, same car,same fuel, same dyno,cooler air, this car put out 538awhp on standard turbos. Theoretically, the Spec Vs are good for a further 100hp or so.

I did some road pulls last night in 3rd 4th 5th 6th and the difference is definitely there! The acceleration and top end pull is ALARMING!


----------



## asiasi (Dec 22, 2007)

Boosted said:


> Nobody knows, it's purely a random number based on guesswork. But as it's the most popular figure at the pub, everybody makes their car sound more powerful than it is. If you want to know flywheel power, then measure it at the flywheel.
> 
> The only figure that counts is the one where it was measured.
> 
> LOL @ adding 24%


http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/145820-my-power-build-done-svm-8.html#post1420210 Whats that percentage then 

Anyway like i said the R35 probably loses a lot less than older GTRs.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Like I said, pay no attention to the dynojet numbers, they bear no relation to the actual power.

Dynojet horsepower explained V Max Factory Pro compete

A dyno is a useful tool if you use the same one over and over. Like others have said, you can't really compare the numbers of two cars on two dynos in two days and usually two continents.

if you want to work out the power of a car, the best indicator is usually the terminal velocity as they cross the line of the quarter mile - even then that assumes no prevailing winds and a level track, but it's more consistent.


----------



## asiasi (Dec 22, 2007)

Adamantium said:


> Like I said, pay no attention to the dynojet numbers, they bear no relation to the actual power.
> 
> Dynojet horsepower explained V Max Factory Pro compete
> 
> ...


Totally agree :thumbsup:


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

asiasi said:


> http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/145820-my-power-build-done-svm-8.html#post1420210 Whats that percentage then
> 
> Anyway like i said the R35 probably loses a lot less than older GTRs.


I make that more like 20%, not 24%.
I think most UK Dyno Dynamics rollers assume 20%.


----------



## T04Z GTR (Dec 8, 2008)

thistle said:


> Race fuel makes the engine safer. There are lots of reasons why, happy to discuss if it is of interest.


Yes please Thistle, id be very interested in your views & experiences with the use of race fuel's...

your posts always make for informative reading..


----------



## asiasi (Dec 22, 2007)

David.Yu said:


> I make that more like 20%, not 24%.
> I think most UK Dyno Dynamics rollers assume 20%.


FFS have a day off, someone earlier in the thread asked for an estimate of fly figure.
I gave a rough calculation guide,by the way your maths aint too good :thumbsup:


----------



## Zed Ed (Oct 24, 2007)

car looks great; what is the ride height?

love the alloys, IMHO the best looking ones for the GTR


----------



## paparazzi (Oct 10, 2009)

Eibach springs .8inch drop in front and .5 inch in the back. Also improves ride quality significantly!


----------



## _shaun_ (Jan 16, 2007)

Just wanted to know a figure so can compare to a "UK" car as we generally measure at the flywheel here?:lamer:


----------



## madandy (Jun 6, 2007)

You 'generally' remove the engine, fit it to a dyno and measure it. Then put it back in the car once you've measured the engine power at the 'fly' ?

I've sen a lot if UK dyno graphs that have been measured on a rolling road and the power figure claims as 'at the wheels' but are usually corrected figures for flywheel power.

The give away is often torque curves and power curves intersecting at 5252 rpm 

Power generated at the wheels is always lower than at the crank but torque measured at the wheels/hubs will always be massively high due to the transmission amplifying torque.

Are the graphs shown in this thread flywheel figures, calculated from at the wheels measurements or a combination of wheel power and crank measured torque?


----------



## Oaky (Nov 6, 2008)

I think the crossing at 5252rpm is just down to arithmetic and units of measure and not where measured.

If you measure torque in ft-lb, engine speed in rpm and power in SAE hp, the curves cross at 5252rpm regardless of any other factor. If you use newton-metres, radians per second, and watts they'll cross somewhere else but always at the same engine speed. I think.

PS. Nice car :thumbsup:


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

The knock resistance of race fuel allows you to safely run leaner and advance the ignition timing. Both can increase the thermal efficiency of the engine - ie the output you can develop for a given air mass. This is because the tuning of a turbo engine on pump fuel at high outputs is normally a considerable compromise where you have to throw in lots of extra fuel (rich) for cooling and delay (retard) the spark so there is less time that the air fuel mixture has to combust ahead of the flame front (knock). Some race fuels are oxygenated and the oxygen available from the fuel (in addition to that from the air) can add to the total available mass of oxygen.

These effects combined can add power and torque at the same boost level, but if your turbo has more airflow available by increasing the boost you can use it without running into knock.

In terms of safety for the engine the peak cylinder pressure can be limited because knock causes much higher pressures than normal combustion. How then can you get extra torque which is related to the cylinder pressure? The reason for this free lunch effect is that you gain torque by having a greater mean effective cylinder pressure, so you can produce a more prolonged force on the piston but do it more smoothly without nasty and damaging spikes of cylinder pressure (knock). Additionally by not having to delay (retard) the ignition timing you can get more of the combustion in the cylinder before the exhaust valves open. One limit to the ignition retard on pump fuel is the exhaust gas temp which can overheat exhaust valves, manifolds and turbines.

Hope that is neither patronising or over technical.


----------

