Just G-tech'd my car...hmmmm
10-29-03, 11:52 PM
#27
10-30-03, 07:22 PM
#28
Mad Man
I have a 97TT Supra, when we(Supras) go single, you either do dual walbros, or dual stockers. Additionally, if you are pushing stock fuel to the limit, you wire the pump for 12vt continous, instead of the 9/12 that a stocker runs depending on load and throttle position. In both situations the stockers died prematurely while running 12 vts continous. This is a consensus, not just a couple of owners. Faced with new Supra pumps costing ~200.00-250.00, and walbros costing ~120.00, most guys replace the stocker w/dual walbros rather than one new, and one old stocker due to life expectancy.
10-30-03, 08:07 PM
#29
Original Gangster/Rotary!
iTrader: (213)
Originally posted by Carl Byck
I have a 97TT Supra, when we(Supras) go single, you either do dual walbros, or dual stockers. Additionally, if you are pushing stock fuel to the limit, you wire the pump for 12vt continous, instead of the 9/12 that a stocker runs depending on load and throttle position. In both situations the stockers died prematurely while running 12 vts continous. This is a consensus, not just a couple of owners. Faced with new Supra pumps costing ~200.00-250.00, and walbros costing ~120.00, most guys replace the stocker w/dual walbros rather than one new, and one old stocker due to life expectancy.
I have a 97TT Supra, when we(Supras) go single, you either do dual walbros, or dual stockers. Additionally, if you are pushing stock fuel to the limit, you wire the pump for 12vt continous, instead of the 9/12 that a stocker runs depending on load and throttle position. In both situations the stockers died prematurely while running 12 vts continous. This is a consensus, not just a couple of owners. Faced with new Supra pumps costing ~200.00-250.00, and walbros costing ~120.00, most guys replace the stocker w/dual walbros rather than one new, and one old stocker due to life expectancy.
10-31-03, 02:13 PM
#32
Round&Round not Up&Down
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: West Bloomfield, MI
Posts: 2,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always wondered how accurate those GTech Pro's are. I did a run with my mods listed below. The GTech said 14.1 @ 103. I spun the tires all the way through 1st and a slight bit in 2nd. It was about 70 degrees at night, boost was around .6 bar creeping to .8 at the top of 3rd, no BC.
Mods are:
LT8 tuned to 10.8-11.2 A/F
RB 2.5 DP/MP with Apex'i 3" CB
HKS cone filter
MSD 10mm wires
BUR9's leading and trailing
stock TMIC
I think that's pretty accurate considering my limited amount of mods...
Mods are:
LT8 tuned to 10.8-11.2 A/F
RB 2.5 DP/MP with Apex'i 3" CB
HKS cone filter
MSD 10mm wires
BUR9's leading and trailing
stock TMIC
I think that's pretty accurate considering my limited amount of mods...
10-31-03, 05:47 PM
#33
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Antonio TX
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heya ian, good to see the car's still running. You ever sell the Supra?
Yup, we sold the Supra a couple of weeks ago. We are now the proud owners of a 97 Civic EX--GASP!
That's right, something we just have to change the fluids in and drive for a few hundred thousand miles.
We plan on getting another MKIV in about a year. We'll see.
I'm heading down to Don's to drop the car off for a new manifold and some tuning tomorrow. She'll probably be down there for a while.
11-02-03, 01:20 AM
#35
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MN
Posts: 2,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just ran the G-Tech Pro on my car tonight. I'd guess it to be pretty accurate. I had a shitty 60' time of 2.2, 1/8 mile of 91mph, but I let off too soon for the end of the quarter mile due to boost creep 
. I let of at 11.22 sec and it said 12.48 for the quarter mile. On the next run I did a even worse 2.48 60' time (didn't do a burnout) 90mph 1/8th and 13.1@112mph. I had to short shift 3rd and 4th on the last one due to creep.
. I let of at 11.22 sec and it said 12.48 for the quarter mile. On the next run I did a even worse 2.48 60' time (didn't do a burnout) 90mph 1/8th and 13.1@112mph. I had to short shift 3rd and 4th on the last one due to creep.
04-05-06, 09:26 PM
#37
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Originally Posted by OzFeTt
just out of interest, i did a run with my gtech a while ago and did 13.0 @ 116mph (crappy road, loads of wheelspin) and my car makes exactly 316rwhp 
(dyno dynamics) this is with a T04R @ 14psi.
Carl is dead right, these bigger turbos really don't work properly on a 13B with pump gas. Water injection/ potent fuel and 20psi+ is the way to go really, really fast
Rob.
(dyno dynamics) this is with a T04R @ 14psi. Carl is dead right, these bigger turbos really don't work properly on a 13B with pump gas. Water injection/ potent fuel and 20psi+ is the way to go really, really fast
Rob.
Hi Rob,
My SP does 318rwhp (237rwkw) on dyno dynamics with stock twins on 12.7psi boost (stock SP set up with PFC and SMB exhaust + CDI)
On my G-Tech RR I recorded best run of 12.813sec @ 185.09 kph (115.6mph) on my test track
I love the G Tech RR and it gives excellent results and is always repeatable, had one FD here a few months ago that had come from the track (after doing a 12.4?) and with extra weight on board etc it did a 13.7 in very hot weather conditions (single turbo car). We took it to a accurate weigh bridge and tested on same piece of track and the power in third gear is as per others I have recorded..... If you set it up correctly and use it as intended just like any ohter piece of testing equipment it can give you excellent information (and very valid I might add). If its set up poorly then expect poor results.
So far as accuarcy goes the latest gen ones are on the money 100%
PS max power recorded on G-Tech in 3rd is always around 248hp
04-05-06, 09:46 PM
#38
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: WI
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have one the the original g-techs and from my experiance, the 0-60 is pretty close, but the 1/4 mile is a bit off. One of my friends borrowed it and tried it at a 1/4 track and got like a 13 flat on the gtech, then found out his time was like a high 14...can't be 100% sure he calibrated it right, as I wasn't there, but he says he did.
I remember it saying like 170hp on my bolt ons TII in first gear, then like 120hp in second...it just measures acceleration, so lots of factors can mess with it, like gear ratios.
My friends probe did like 110hp and put down 150whp on a dyno with the same set-up.
It works good for benchmarking, and fun to play with, but I wouldn't expect accurate times from it. It was only $40 anyway.
I remember it saying like 170hp on my bolt ons TII in first gear, then like 120hp in second...it just measures acceleration, so lots of factors can mess with it, like gear ratios.
My friends probe did like 110hp and put down 150whp on a dyno with the same set-up.
It works good for benchmarking, and fun to play with, but I wouldn't expect accurate times from it. It was only $40 anyway.
04-05-06, 11:22 PM
#39
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
I never used the early versions, but the later one's are excellent, temp compensated very high accuracy and if run on a flat test road (I check with altitude/pressure meter over 800m distance) then they will give results same as a race track except far more realistic cause its on a real road with real tires and normal levels of grip
I have used G-Tech pro compitition & G-Tech pro RR and both I would recommend to anyone
I have used G-Tech pro compitition & G-Tech pro RR and both I would recommend to anyone
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
DaleClark
3rd Generation Specific (1993-2002)
16
03-18-05 11:14 PM
untaymd
3rd Generation Specific (1993-2002)
16
08-15-02 04:16 PM