JamieP Posted January 18, 2009 Author Share Posted January 18, 2009 That is a nice result Jamie, excellent graph. Stock cams look to be performing very well at that power level. Can you feel them choke at all on the road at top end?.... The intake manifold results are very interesting, is it a 80mm? It did stuggle at top end before the intake manifold was fitted, feels alive at top now. Q45 is 90mm iirc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luxluc Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Great result Jamie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveR Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Nice result! Obviously I'm upset that although my ECU change released more ponies than your car had, but now you're back in front , but still - very I wondered if the intake would make a big difference, Robbie was raving about his at SupraPod last year and he knows his beans. I may have to look into that.... edit - Ryan, let us know when Jamie's new graph is uploaded so I can properly compare with my new graph & Jamie's old one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieP Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 I still dont have the spool your vvti has since going solaris. It does supprise me that your setup with cams and the .96 is not well into the 600's though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanM Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 How do you know/calculate the optimum size of throttle body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieP Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 Me? not a clue:D had the same setup on the red car and i felt it worked well so went with the same again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 whats the plan for the sound system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieP Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 whats the plan for the sound system? A friend of mine owns http://www.aiaudio.co.uk/ Its going in for a Kenwood DNX-5220bt head unit, JL front and rear speakers with tweeter in the footwell and a small sub in the boot, having the car completely dynamat. will add a few kilos but i dont care, i want a nice sounding system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannoSupra Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 A friend of mine owns http://www.aiaudio.co.uk/ Its going in for a Kenwood DNX-5220bt head unit, JL front and rear speakers with tweeter in the footwell and a small sub in the boot, having the car completely dynamat. will add a few kilos but i dont care, i want a nice sounding system. CopyCat! There's a cheaper, just as good, sound deadning on the market, im sure your guy will know about it, i cant remember what its called! It'll be a nicer car to drive, less noise and will feel more solid believe it or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 A friend of mine owns http://www.aiaudio.co.uk/ Its going in for a Kenwood DNX-5220bt head unit, JL front and rear speakers with tweeter in the footwell and a small sub in the boot, having the car completely dynamat. will add a few kilos but i dont care, i want a nice sounding system. I have done this a few times now as you know. You can save a load of weight gain and get great road noise reduction (you'll hear the exhaust and engine nicer than ever before). It's a deadmat/ acoustic foam mix. My cars almost BMW qiuet with it. I'll email you the details shortly. Car audio shops tend to cover all the outer skins and add a lot of unecessary weight but dont get the right tyre noise redection. Also I am about to install the T5 series JL audio flat sub, which ought to be a cracker. Will send you pics etc shortly. If you need an amp I have a 5channel soundsteam 550.5, a "proper amp" as new for humble money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieP Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 Ok cool, sub sounds interesting, i dont want anything big, 8" maybe 10" and keeping everything looking stock as possible is what i have told him, Im not a bass junkie, infact i hate deep base, i just want crystall clear and loud, if it sounds as good as the stock system in my truck ill be happy:d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 You wanna hear my front end, p.gold M100 running high grade 6.5 components Top quality amp power is the answer with the gains fully down ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tDR Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Congrats on the new results Jamie, that's interesting reading on the intake manifold and a mod I've now made a mental note of as being in the "worthwhile to get extra power without sacrifice" group The cams are pretty mild - 256 was it? Just fit them, ignore that RyanG chap /red devil on shoulder. Just kidding m8, I'm just curious to see if the quest for more power can be continued without sacrifice somewhere in the power curve. It's probably sensible to leave well alone now save for sorting the fuelling and a mild boost increase - you're so close to a perfect street setup. History repeats itself on here... the fuel pulsation dampner bypass was a mod considered essential when I joined here or not long after. It was deemed that the stock fuel system was more than man enough for the job if that was done and that includes the stock rail - albeit modified to be twin feed with center return - as it flowed more than the likes of the HKS rail. Just uprated pump(s) and injectors so long as those mods were done. Thinking back to pics of the rail, it was adapted to aeroquip fittings and so aftermarket higher capacity fuel lines and an aftermarket FPR (Aeromotive) were also used. Cheers, Brian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkR Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Jamie, how has the oil cooler performed so far? Happy with the temps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan.G Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 edit - Ryan, let us know when Jamie's new graph is uploaded so I can properly compare with my new graph & Jamie's old one. Done, http://2bartuning.com/dynographs/ Please note all though, Jamie is using a Greddy intake manifold which seems to have been designed and flow tested well for the 2JZ but you will not get the same kinda results from a Ebay manifold. All the Supras i have done on them have lost alot of midrange. Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieP Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 tDR... yes mate 256 cams, as Ryan says im gonna enjoy it for a while now;) TyranoSupraRex... ive not got round to hooking up the oil temp sender on the Dash2 yet so no readings but seems to be doing the job. Cheers ryan, good to see it on paper:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveR Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Done, http://2bartuning.com/dynographs/ Please note all though, Jamie is using a Greddy intake manifold which seems to have been designed and flow tested well for the 2JZ but you will not get the same kinda results from a Ebay manifold. All the Supras i have done on them have lost alot of midrange. Ryan Interesting that. Higher peak numbers but taking ever so slightly longer to come in. What in Jamie's setup is allowing the torque graph to stay relatively flat into the higher rev range Vs mine which dips in comparison? What do the experts out there reckon would happen to the graphs if the other cams were fitted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkR Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 tDR... yes mate 256 cams, as Ryan says im gonna enjoy it for a while now;) TyranoSupraRex... ive not got round to hooking up the oil temp sender on the Dash2 yet so no readings but seems to be doing the job. Cheers ryan, good to see it on paper:) Cheers, let me know if you do decide to hook it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieP Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 (edited) Interesting that. Higher peak numbers but taking ever so slightly longer to come in. What in Jamie's setup is allowing the torque graph to stay relatively flat into the higher rev range Vs mine which dips in comparison? What do the experts out there reckon would happen to the graphs if the other cams were fitted? It comes in a little quicker to start with than it was before but then just drops under as the revs climb a little till it overtakes again at the top, The boost graph looks a lot different and when the boost can be put back up im sure that little bit will be back. There is only one way the graph will go when cams are fitted and thats to the right, as said though it spools so fast i dont mind losing a little for the extra 40-50bhp id get with cams. Edited January 20, 2009 by JamieP (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 There is only one way the graph will go when cams are fitted and thats to the right, as said though it spools so fast i dont mind losing a little for the extra 40-50bhp id get with cams. Your graph is almost identical to mine but I am on a smaller tubby and 264/264 cams, the 256/256 cams will push you over a little but should open up the top end. Its a gamble as your T67 is spooling really well at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieP Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 Your graph is almost identical to mine but I am on a smaller tubby and 264/264 cams, the 256/256 cams will push you over a little but should open up the top end. Its a gamble as your T67 is spooling really well at the moment. Yea but you still have more bhp than me so whats a man to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveR Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveR Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 It does supprise me that your setup with cams and the .96 is not well into the 600's though. Hmmm. It's been mapped with the WI disconnected for safety, and only using 97 RON fuel, but still that's not that significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieP Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 Hmmm. It's been mapped with the WI disconnected for safety, and only using 97 RON fuel, but still that's not that significant. Mine is the same, WI off for mapping and done on Esso 97 as its my local garage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts