dandan

Sorry gents but I cannot make it. I was late in from work (just!) and cannot get there in time now really. Got to have some food etc before I do anything. I reckon it's about an hour away so by the time I get there you'll probably be gone. Sorry all. No doubt I'll meet you all soon!

Cool. I'll be coming from Chelt direction

Got a postcode or anything chaps? I have no idea where you are taliking about

Where did the 500bhp at the flywheel figure come from?? A Thor dyno figure + 20% or something similar I suppose! Edit: Or even 25%!! I doubt it very much Paul.

I know that Darren. I was trying to make two different points. 1. The damping side of things provided by the Toyota pulley and the dual mass flywheel. 2. I'm sure the stock rotating assembly is designed be balanced to a certain degree once assembled even if it is not dynamically balanced as one (as it's a mass produced engine). There are no guarantees that the balancing will be as good as stock when an aftermarket pulley is thrown on. Hence my comment about maybe fitting it if the engine was fully stripped and the rotating components all balanced as one. Even then I'd still have the original concerns about the lack of damping. But if all the stock pulleys are totally neutral as far as balance is concerned so as to have no effect on the balance of the rotaing components then this wouldn't be true. Assuming the Boostlogic was the same a swap shouldn't cause any balance issues. The light weight wasn't what concerned me with regard to balancing, it was the possible mismatch of individually balanced components however the damping would definitely be my first and greatest concern. Make sense? - not sure if explained myself well enough there?

Maybe, but it was actually make quite reasonable boost for a stock car. What boost did Millhouse's car hit on the dyno, any idea? Fuelling looks a little rich to me although quite consistent - no massive fluctuations as no 2 starts to come on line. Are you sure you are running a stock ecu? A few Jap cars did sneak over with non standard ecu's. Might be worth a look - 2 minute job.

VVT-i Simon? Your torque peak of 410lbft is at 5050rpm with about 1.45bar and 13.0 AFR. My peak torque was 364lbft at 4573rpm with approx 1.28bar and a 11.2 AFR. I think your 13.0 is gaining you a few ponies but really is dangerously lean under boost like that, especially 1.5bar !

Nice one Looks good Simon apart from the "weak" 13.0:1 mixture (for turbo motor). E-Manage and some UK injectors would no doubt be ample to sort you out there, but depends on future goals really. 429bhp at the hubs is not to be sniffed at, the only person to come close to that (I believe) was Baldy with 412 on stockers. Is your ecu stock? Did you reset it before the runs? All done on Optimax? One thing that impressed me was the non existent drop in boost pressure as no2 was coming online. I have a dip in the boost curve there of around 0.2bar I think. (I'll check) 1.5 bar though, that is a serious amount of boost for the stock turbos and manifold. Have you any form of intake or exhaust gas temperature measurement? Any other mods? Water injection? Dan

Wow, lots of views so far! :)

Your inbox is full Chris, just to let you know. Did you get my email earlier today about the engine ?

Ah right, That sounds more like it. I thought when you said reasonable boost by 2000rpm you we're gonna come back with 0.25 - 0.3bar. So yours makes no boost below 2600rpm? I am genuinely interested as I know you've been spending some time on a dedocated TTC setup, something I was considering. Mine makes approx 0.25bar by 2800rpm, 0.5 bar by 3200rpm and 1.2 just under 4000rpm. These are not "sixth gear up hill figures", they are approx 3/4 throttle on flat road 3rd, 4th, 5th.

Eyefi, I don't race from 2000rpm either but it's unavoidable off the line in a manual. Also the ability to just squeeze the accelerator slightly at 2000rpm and ease past any cars or just accelerate smoothly and rapidly is only due to that 1st turbo. Impossible to generate that sort of torque with an 8.5:1 NA motor through mapping alone. It makes rapid progress so easy without the need to rev over 4000. I'm not talking about all out hammering in in any of these posts really, more the off boost chaacteristics. I have a CW 1st decat pipe and an HKS lower decat pipe, coupled with a Trial exhaust. How much boost do you make at 2000rpm in 4th on a flat road? Also that audible 1st turbo whistle has all but gone now, as had my dump valve dumping in low revs as there's nothing there to dump.

The car does feel like it needs a serious dose of ignition advance below 3000rpm. I was not saying TTC is a waste of time and even with careful mapping it would be no good. However, when used in ETTC or hose type method this is not possible. Obviously the stock ecu is mapped for the sequential system. Resetting the ecu will never change that fact, granted some small amount of ignition and fuel adjustment will take place. My comments regarding the exhaust tone all relate to off boost driving, such as light cruise and over run. Off boost the exhaust does indeed make a droning sound which just conjures up images of NA motors with drain pipe exhaust on. The urgency, barble and energetic feel from the exhaust sound is now non existent in off boost conditions. A full remap and dedicated manifold design would no doubt help to pull up some of the lost lower torque but you'll never replace the Seq pull below 3000rpm, it's not possible. Again it's down to personal preference, the rewards being a useable mid range power band withh TTC rather than the characteristic dip and rush of decatted seq cars. To be perfectly honest I find the exhaust tone now a little embarassing, I wouldn't say it is much louder at car park speeds than before; just flatter, dronier and less sporting. There will be no gains from TTC in the high rpm bands compared to seq as in both cases two turbos will be running at full operating speeds in the high rpm range.

1. Barry 2. Chipmunk 3. Attilauk 4. Kopite 5. Bobbeh 6. MrAngry 7. SupraStar 3000 8. Terribleturner 9. FiftyPlus1 10. Sherriff 11.Jurgen 12.Manic 13. geoffvalenti 14. James C 15. Gough 16. Supradibbs 17. Soonto 18. JamesArup 19. Suprababy 20. GeordieSteve 21. SupraDreamz 22. The Real Brain 23. Jay 24. Kitt 25. Gatso 26. Trig 27. crimbo 28. qaisar 29. Stealthhosts 30. paulfurn 31. Zed 32. loks 33. Ian R 34. jot_ie 35. dandan

I tried the temporary TTC hose method this evening to finally get an idea what it was like running in parallel. I have a few observations which I'd like to make and see how other people's experiences compare. - Exhaust has lost its throaty off beat, 6 cylinder rhythm. - Off boost it now sounds more like a crappy 4 cylinder engine with an exhaust that is way too big. - It is very droney at cruising and part throttle openings. (Off boost) - Exhaust sound on overrun is also a lot more flat, boomy and uninspiring. - Generally exhaust volume is greater at all engine speeds when off boost than in sequential mode. - Engine generally feels very lazy and a bit like a badly tuned low compression NA motor, (hardly suprising). - No pull at all to speak of below 2000rpm. - 0.25 bar of boost produced by 2800rpm in 4th. - 0.5 bar of boost produced by 3200rpm approx in 4th. - Max boost of up to 1.2 bar produced by approximately 4000 rpm in 4th. - No change in top end performance as expected. - Relatively smooth power curve now that the prespooling dip in the torque curve has been removed. However there is still a wall of torque created at 4000-4500 rpm creating that hard pull. - It seems like the 3000-4000rpm range is now much more useable however in comparison to the amazing low down pull from 1600rpm (with seq), I'm not sure if that trade off is a worthy one. I am sure the area under the torque curve must be less in TTC than in seq setup. (Igoring some curves I have seen with a horrible boost spike causing a brief torque peak in TTC). - Fast cornering is far far more easier and safer in TTC than in a decatted seq setup. Gradually feeding in power between 3000 and 4500rpm range is totally predictable with no risk of a 2nd turbo kick whilst putting the power on when approaching the exit of a bend. Anybody care to comment on this at all. I know this has been discussed before and many people prefer TTC to Seq (especially when hybrids are used and 2nd turbo kick becomes more and more savage). Others would never sacrifice the Seq setup and some go for the switchable ETTC. I'm going to leave it for a day or so and see how it goes. I can't see me keeping it though as there seems to be no straight line performance benefit at all. Anyone disagree with this? The only upside for me pesonally is the ability to corner on the throttle better. Biggest loss is the lovely sound that has now been replaced with a lazy low compression slug like drone.

Pointless in the fact that the discussions on here about correction figures and percentages never seem to get anywhere, and without some real comparable data no-one can say for sure. I didn't mean anything related to this thread in general, far from it. I can't see someone forking out the £££ to put an engine onto an engne dyno and then installing into a car and running on several different sets of rollers (ideally on same day if not at similar time of day) to make reliable comparisons. It's always interesting to see what newish totally stock cars make on certain rollers, but probably best not to hijack the thread to discuss this.

I was wondering that too!

As a rough idea (and no more) on a manual I say add approx 10-11% to the Thor figure to get a sensible guesstimate. This has been discussed several times and is almost a pointless debate. 20% is certainly waaay over the top.

Very nice Barney. Keep us posted.

Top quality Ash, You're not a draftsman by any chance are ya!! I thought the variable geometry inlet on the NA was common knowledge and like most NA stuff, unfortunately, it just never gets discussed. I don't think you've got anything to gain by fiddling Ash. If you were aiming for a balls out NA 300bhp engine then you might well junk the lot but that's a different story.

I'm not a convert, I'd never fit lightened components such as flywheel or front pulley to my motor unless it was a dedicated race engine or underwent regular strip downs and checkovers. At the very least I want the whole engine stripped and the rotating assembly balanced dynamically as one. - Hopefully to go some way to extending the life and promoting some smoothness. I'm sure the balancing must be thrown off by just throwing on a aftermarket flywheel and front pulley.

Sorry chaps but no chance I'll be fitting a Boostlogic one. I don't doubt the workmanship or quality, but I value my engine longevity too much to sacrifice it for the small gains a lighter pullet MAY give. Too many risks for my liking, especially given the relatively long stroke of the 2JZ and the harmonics that can be generated.

Thanks Jake, I'll have a look over them in a bit then give Toyota a ring. Bit busy at work at the mo. Cheers

Anyone let me know what the part number is for the front pulley and if possible any bolt/washer that may be needed? This is for a 1996 manual non vvti facelift jap RZ, not sure if all pulleys are the same? Anyone got a rough idea of cost?

Just off to bed Ash, but I touched on this in the thread you posted up about modding the NA. Will reply tomoz. It's all to do with varying the intake runner lengths and volume to take advantage of pulse waves generated in the intake system as valves open and close creating pulses. The timing and direction of these pulses (if designed correctly) helps to force more charge into the cylinders at a given rpm. Typically (but not exclusively): - Short runner lengths: Pulse tuning effect occurs higher in rev range - Long runner lengths: Occurs lower in rpm range. - Longer runners help build greater torque at lower rpm's and short do the same at higher rpm's. NA supras have a variable intake system to try to allow benefit at more than one single point in the rev range.