Notices
Forced Induction Turbochargers and Superchargers..Got Boost?

bouldernissan z update

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 11, 2004 | 08:09 AM
  #21  
bldrz's Avatar
bldrz
Thread Starter
New Member
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: colorado
Default

kudos the numbers qouted are correct(boost, hp, tq, etc.) the varaiables have been in our tuning. by that i mean a/f ratio, race gas, fuel pressure and power curves. we have found that we have far surpassed the abilities of the e-manage. at the last dyno session the only way to run that hp/tq level was to increase fuel pressure. the problem with that is it is very fat in the midrange. the only other variable i can think of is the sae correction factor. i have heard that some people believe the factor is to high for a turbo car at altitude. we are at about 5200 feet. i am working on posting our latest dyno sheet. if you have one you can post that would be great. im very curious to see the differences. sorry about the long post. best of luck jason.
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2004 | 09:16 AM
  #22  
IceY2K1Max's Avatar
IceY2K1Max
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
From: Tucson, AZ
Default

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you said you DO NOT SAE correct and that those were "uncorrected", if I remember correctly.

If you guys are SAE correcting...those numbers are SEVERELY exaggerated and you should post the CF along with them, so we can compare apples-to-apples.

Still hoping to see the dyno to know what this thing is really doing, since peak numbers are good for bragging and all, but rather worthless in describing how the TT really performs.
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2004 | 09:36 AM
  #23  
bldrz's Avatar
bldrz
Thread Starter
New Member
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: colorado
Default

Here is our latest dyno chart!
Attached Thumbnails bouldernissan z update-dsc00315.jpg  
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2004 | 09:55 AM
  #24  
bldrz's Avatar
bldrz
Thread Starter
New Member
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: colorado
Default

icey2k1max i believe someone made that statement in a thread on our car. we have never made a statement to the effect that our numbers are uncorrected. i however do not believe the numbers are severely exaggerated. i have driven many fi cars at sea level and altitude and there is a difference in power. no matter where you live a correction factor is always going to be involved to a degree(temp, barometer, altitude, etc.). everyone has an opinion. in the future we can post the cf. we are here to share information not bragging rights. thanks jason
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2004 | 09:56 AM
  #25  
joenismo's Avatar
joenismo
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
From: tacoma
Default

Looks like it is getting a little lean on the top end.
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2004 | 10:05 AM
  #26  
bldrz's Avatar
bldrz
Thread Starter
New Member
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: colorado
Default

joenismo i agree that is about as lean as we want to go. that is at the top end of safe on a car with forged internals in our opinion. if it were a daily driver we would dial it down to 12 to 1. at this point the only way to richen up the top end is fuel pressure. and as you can see by the dyno we are already way rich in the middle. jason
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2004 | 11:07 AM
  #27  
IceY2K1Max's Avatar
IceY2K1Max
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
From: Tucson, AZ
Default

So, that's ACTUALLY around 464whp/462wtq(using CF=1.27) and that makes more sense.

I knew squill was wrong before, just waiting for proof. Yes, posting the CF is a must ESPECIALLY for guys that are at extremes in altitude/temp.

Don't cheat...SAE correction is ONLY for NA guys and severely exaggerates the numbers the farther you get away from SAE base.
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2004 | 11:52 AM
  #28  
bldrz's Avatar
bldrz
Thread Starter
New Member
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: colorado
Default

icey2k1max WE ARE NOT TRYING TO CHEAT as i said we have never posted our numbers were uncorrected. and i believe severely exaggerates is a bit extreme. anyway we will be posting dynos in the future with the cf listed. as stated earlier we are trying to share and learn information in regards to high performance modifications on the z.thanks jason.
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2004 | 12:12 PM
  #29  
IceY2K1Max's Avatar
IceY2K1Max
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
From: Tucson, AZ
Default

I guess "cheat" was too strong a word, however correcting UPwards of 120+HP/100+TQ *IS* "severely exaggerated" IMO.

Why not just use uncorrected or post both graphs? Do you have the DynoJet Runviewer files? The whole point of SAE correction is to normalize the playing field(for NA though), however in boosted extreme altitude/temperature cases such as yours, it's doing the OPPOSITE, ie skewing the results away from the norm.
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2004 | 12:31 PM
  #30  
bldrz's Avatar
bldrz
Thread Starter
New Member
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: colorado
Default

icey2k1max i agree with you that the cf is too high for extreme climates. however i do not think that a fi setup can overcome all variables as mentioned above. i have talked to many tuners in regards to the cf and they all have different opinions. i would be happy to post both dyno sheets or list the cf used on the day of the run in the future. thanks jason
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2004 | 12:36 PM
  #31  
IceY2K1Max's Avatar
IceY2K1Max
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
From: Tucson, AZ
Default

Okay...that sounds good.

It would be nice to be able to still correct for temperature and humidity on FI cars withOUT pressure. I wonder if the dyno operator could simply change the elevation to trick the dyno into thinking it was at sea level. Probably not since they have a baro sensor.
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2004 | 12:46 PM
  #32  
bldrz's Avatar
bldrz
Thread Starter
New Member
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: colorado
Default

ICEY2K1MAX unfortunately dynojet dynos come "locked". it would be nice if they were adjustable, but that would leave the door wide open for dishonest tuners to adjust to their benefit. i am going to start a thread on cf's to get some other opinions. thanks jason
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2004 | 01:05 PM
  #33  
SQUILL's Avatar
SQUILL
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
From: denver
Default

Originally posted by IceY2K1Max
So, that's ACTUALLY around 464whp/462wtq(using CF=1.27) and that makes more sense.

I knew squill was wrong before, just waiting for proof. Yes, posting the CF is a must ESPECIALLY for guys that are at extremes in altitude/temp.

Don't cheat...SAE correction is ONLY for NA guys and severely exaggerates the numbers the farther you get away from SAE base.
Hey im never wrong!!!!! J/K I didnt know a correction factor was involved just posting what i heared about a really cool project in process!!!!!!

Hey BldrZ glad to see you here on the forums Ive been following the progress on ur car as best as i could as its one of only a few out there with a built motor.

Correct me if i'm wrong but max efficiency on the tdo5-18g's is around 22 psi.

You intend to boost over 20 psi when the fuel system and tuning is all figured out correct??

Cant wait to hear more about this car !! Got any pics to show us??? Any way Good job on the car ,really interesting where you chose to mount the guages !! keep us updated!
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2004 | 01:16 PM
  #34  
IceY2K1Max's Avatar
IceY2K1Max
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
From: Tucson, AZ
Default

Haha...no harm, no foul....just smelled something not adding up.

Still damn impressive...just hoping to see 15+psi.
Reply
Old Jun 11, 2004 | 01:54 PM
  #35  
bldrz's Avatar
bldrz
Thread Starter
New Member
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: colorado
Default

thanks guys, we were planning on about 25 pounds of boost early in the project. however due to the type of power its putting down at around 12-13 pounds i may have to revise that statement. through our conversations with greddy they stated that the turbos are capable of 25 pounds. as we continue to develop our fuel system we will continue to increase boost. we will keep you up to date. thanks again jason
Reply
Old Aug 19, 2004 | 04:29 AM
  #36  
Juztin's Avatar
Juztin
Registered User
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,027
Likes: 29
From: Los Lunas, NM
Default

bump, any updates on your guys's progress? Ever get the injector upgrade?
Reply
Old Aug 19, 2004 | 09:00 AM
  #37  
bldrz's Avatar
bldrz
Thread Starter
New Member
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: colorado
Default

juztin, sorry we have not updated in awhile. currently running 650 rc injectors with two 720 sub injectors controlled with rebic 4. we have increased the boost to 16.9 pounds and have produced as much as 620 rwh corrected. however now that the fuel system is capable the wastegate springs are not. we should have the springs installed and the z dynoed by this tuesday. should hit about 25 pounds of boost with this setup. with boosting and tuning "gremlins" we have still managed to run a 12.5 at 118mph at bandimere(5800 ft elevation).that translates to a little under 12 flat at sea level.i will update again as soon as we dyno with the new springs.-thanks jason
Reply
Old Aug 19, 2004 | 09:12 AM
  #38  
SQUILL's Avatar
SQUILL
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
From: denver
Default

ahhhhhhhhh Sweet!! Keep us updated!!!
Reply
Old Aug 19, 2004 | 11:08 AM
  #39  
turbo-maxima's Avatar
turbo-maxima
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
From: Houston, Tx
Default

wow good job guys. Your going to have supras shitting in their pants if they were only running 1 bar.
Reply
Old Aug 19, 2004 | 03:22 PM
  #40  
Juztin's Avatar
Juztin
Registered User
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,027
Likes: 29
From: Los Lunas, NM
Default

awsome!!! Wish I could be present to watch that sucker dyno! Ouch!
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:44 AM.