1uz-fe single turbo.. did it work?
- Thread starter 2gtsvette
- Start date
The 1UZFE EGR Delete Kit is available for sale here.
Now, I'm building 1 custom passenger manifold going backward to the transmission with the crosspipe (right under the tranny oil pan) from the stock driver header and merged together, and then one 2.5" pipe will go along the passenger manifold, under the alternator, and forward to the radiator. That's where the turbo is located in front of the engine. And four 1.5" downpipes will go under the crossmember, and then change to dual 2.25" pipes. With this design, I only have four 1.5" pipes instead of eight like before.
If you have enough ground clearance, I'm very sure it'll work. Please post any updates. I'll take some pictures for my project link and let you know when I have a chance.
You want a short pipe to the turbo, keeps heat in the pipe (more exhaust velocity), and better response.
You can just swap the headers over and get them facing forward pretty easy.
I haven't really switched the headers and face them forward, but from my measurements, they won't clear the alternator and the A/C pump. I also built a custom manifold on the passenger side using a 2.5" with the curve straight down after the last exhaust cylinder & facing forward, I had the problem with clearance. Maybe cutting the last lower parts of the stock headers (above the flanges) and make them shorter will give some clearances.
Props to yah good work:beerchug:. my setup will be almost like yours but with Twins. What piggy back are you running? and advice you have before I do my install ( 2 weeks from now) ?? thanks..
I heard the SAFC isn't that reliable to the stock ECU because the stock ECU has to relearn the setting from the SAFC everytime the car is started. Does it happen to you? I'm thinking about the SAFC for my SC, too.
4000GT
New Member
- Messages
- 2,043
- Location
- Christchurch, New Zealand
Well, its a cheap way to do it, saves turning the headers around, but not the best way...
stevechumo
Active Member
- Messages
- 3,054
- Location
- OC, City of Sunshine
It'll definitely work effectively, although it's not the best way. I'm currently building a single turbo SC400 and I actually built this design with 90% done. However, I cancelled it because I didn't have enough ground clearance when my car is lowered. On each stock header, I used dual 1.5" totalling four 1.5" pipes up to the turbo and four 1.5" downpipes.
Now, I'm building 1 custom passenger manifold going backward to the transmission with the crosspipe (right under the tranny oil pan) from the stock driver header and merged together, and then one 2.5" pipe will go along the passenger manifold, under the alternator, and forward to the radiator. That's where the turbo is located in front of the engine. And four 1.5" downpipes will go under the crossmember, and then change to dual 2.25" pipes. With this design, I only have four 1.5" pipes instead of eight like before.
If you have enough ground clearance, I'm very sure it'll work. Please post any updates. I'll take some pictures for my project link and let you know when I have a chance.
4000GT
New Member
- Messages
- 2,043
- Location
- Christchurch, New Zealand
You want a short pipe to the turbo, keeps heat in the pipe (more exhaust velocity), and better response.
You can just swap the headers over and get them facing forward pretty easy.
stevechumo
Active Member
- Messages
- 3,054
- Location
- OC, City of Sunshine
You're right. That theory also depends on other factors as well, such as the pipe diameter, how long the pipe is, and how big the turbo is. Let's say if you change both pipes (both sides) to 3", then you might have some lagging. The reality is several turbo kits are located all the way to the mufflers (long distance) and they still work. I heard the lagging is very minimal.
I haven't really switched the headers and face them forward, but from my measurements, they won't clear the alternator and the A/C pump. I also built a custom manifold on the passenger side using a 2.5" with the curve straight down after the last exhaust cylinder & facing forward, I had the problem with clearance. Maybe cutting the last lower parts of the stock headers (above the flanges) and make them shorter will give some clearances.
Props to yah good work:beerchug:. my setup will be almost like yours but with Twins. What piggy back are you running? and advice you have before I do my install ( 2 weeks from now) ?? thanks..
I'm running the SAFC2. The biggest problem is the transmission or finding a suitable solution to hold in excess of 400 hp that wont make me a poor man.
If you can put the headers in I would do it and forged pistons and rods are a good thing to do if you can afford it, that way you dont have to worry about it later on.
I would select a turbo with ball bearings if I had to do it again.
Traction with 285's is a problem if you can fit 315's go for it.
You will need to upgrade the fuel system to push over 400hp safely. The fuel rails accept metric fittings not SAE or npt.
IF you bring the pipes down the bottom of the car like I did you will have to get rid of the lower strut bar.
Upgrade the brakes if you can
Make sure your suspension can handle the increased hp
Invest in a wideband
A lot of this is common sense but I wanted to give you a little advice.
If you can put the headers in I would do it and forged pistons and rods are a good thing to do if you can afford it, that way you dont have to worry about it later on.
I would select a turbo with ball bearings if I had to do it again.
Traction with 285's is a problem if you can fit 315's go for it.
You will need to upgrade the fuel system to push over 400hp safely. The fuel rails accept metric fittings not SAE or npt.
IF you bring the pipes down the bottom of the car like I did you will have to get rid of the lower strut bar.
Upgrade the brakes if you can
Make sure your suspension can handle the increased hp
Invest in a wideband
A lot of this is common sense but I wanted to give you a little advice.
I dont plan on running more the 7 psi 8 max for now... I dont want to break the bank (yet) so i want to play it safe.. I think you may have noticed my post in CL about the piggy back.. I am going with the SMT 6 or SMT 7 because of the good pricing and its wonderful abiltys. oh yeh and what are the effects of removing the lower strut bar?
stevechumo
Active Member
- Messages
- 3,054
- Location
- OC, City of Sunshine
You're that lextremist! :Eyecrazy: I only replaced the factory rubber bushings with polyurethane bushings and the handling/cornering have improved slightly. I can see that right away. And now you completly removed the lower swaybar, then you're hard to beat. It's not just about handling, I believe it's about safety, too. The swaybar somewhat holds the front wheels apart and make them straight. I can't sacrify this. :no:
I heard the SAFC isn't that reliable to the stock ECU because the stock ECU has to relearn the setting from the SAFC everytime the car is started. Does it happen to you? I'm thinking about the SAFC for my SC, too.
The factory bar is very light and thin material, it isnt going to do much in terms of holding the wheels apart. I would have prefered to keep it or even put a TRD unit in but well it didnt work out.
I have had no problem with the SAFC. My understanding is that The problem you outlined has to do iwth long term fuel trims. If the fuel is not dialed in to run close to the stock AFR under non boost situations, it supposedly gives the oem computer fits. The oem computer tries to dial the car back in to the stock afr which is right at 14.7-15 in my case. If you have the car dialed in to the 14.7-15 the oem comp0uter does not really have to adjust it much over time. But if you are running at 12's or 13's under non boost conditions the oem computer will attempt to dial it in over time.
I should also mention that the GS300 computer is very different from the GS400 computer. The 300 computer does appear to hsave a problem relearning or fightint the piggyback tune in a relatively short period of time.
I know 2 other guys locally that hav FI 1uz's with SAFC and they do not have problems with the OEM computer fighting the tune.
I have had no problem with the SAFC. My understanding is that The problem you outlined has to do iwth long term fuel trims. If the fuel is not dialed in to run close to the stock AFR under non boost situations, it supposedly gives the oem computer fits. The oem computer tries to dial the car back in to the stock afr which is right at 14.7-15 in my case. If you have the car dialed in to the 14.7-15 the oem comp0uter does not really have to adjust it much over time. But if you are running at 12's or 13's under non boost conditions the oem computer will attempt to dial it in over time.
I should also mention that the GS300 computer is very different from the GS400 computer. The 300 computer does appear to hsave a problem relearning or fightint the piggyback tune in a relatively short period of time.
I know 2 other guys locally that hav FI 1uz's with SAFC and they do not have problems with the OEM computer fighting the tune.
stevechumo
Active Member
- Messages
- 3,054
- Location
- OC, City of Sunshine
Thanks, Morris. I think the SAFC is tuned along the RPM curve, which means it's tuned along with the boost as well. More RPM, more boost. So if I tune it at Stochoemetric point at cruising & idle, then I should be ok. I'll look into the SAFC as you said.
For the removal of the swaybar, you're still the winner. I'm also thinking about flatting the dual 2" downpipes to 1" so they'll fit along the swaybar & give better ground clearance. The hard part is flattening them at the angles without crushing them. Or I'll just run 2 dual 1.5" pipes as planned.
For the removal of the swaybar, you're still the winner. I'm also thinking about flatting the dual 2" downpipes to 1" so they'll fit along the swaybar & give better ground clearance. The hard part is flattening them at the angles without crushing them. Or I'll just run 2 dual 1.5" pipes as planned.
The SAFC is does adjust fuel based upon rpm, but it is not boost sensitive. It is far from ideal, but it works.
for instance, I can be at 4K rpm and be into the boost or I can be at 4k and not be boosting. The way I adjus it is that I assume that most of the time if I am at 4k for instance I will be under full boost so I adjust the fuel for what would be needed assumjing I am at full boost at 4K.
Not sure if I am being clear.
for instance, I can be at 4K rpm and be into the boost or I can be at 4k and not be boosting. The way I adjus it is that I assume that most of the time if I am at 4k for instance I will be under full boost so I adjust the fuel for what would be needed assumjing I am at full boost at 4K.
Not sure if I am being clear.
Yes I would reccomend the SAFC only because no one to my knowledge has successfully installed and emanage on a 1uz let alone a late model 1uz with VVTI. I have learned not to be the guinea pig
I have been running my safc from 6psi (spring) to 17 psi daily. The FPR is a requirement when you go over 12 psi or so in my book. However I have run the car wtihout a FPR at around 12 psi, after that the fuel system upgrade was required.
I have been running my safc from 6psi (spring) to 17 psi daily. The FPR is a requirement when you go over 12 psi or so in my book. However I have run the car wtihout a FPR at around 12 psi, after that the fuel system upgrade was required.
Similar threads
Standalone ECU
What is the best standalone for single turbo 1UZ?
