Dale FZ1

MCA Reds are a great bit of kit.

Composite signboard, approx. 4.5mm thick and reasonably flex free. Runs back to the steering rack. No fancy channels. No splitter section as yet. I consider it is simple design. Was a bit fiddly to get the whole thing in place. Time permitting I will put some pics up on my R33 build thread.

Youtube search "Lancia Delta Integrale S4 Bergrennen" and similar with "Toivonen Integrale S4" besides the performance, check how they fitted all the mechanicals. That work was done with the resources of a factory and a big testing schedule.

You'd think it's more compressor than the turbine can effectively drive. Maybe better paired with the TDO6H

I hope there's some good pics of those flares on the R33. Front and rear?

My mate still has that HP Books title. I used it for reference when I played with a MR30 in the 90s. Good story to follow.

I agree with the GTX3576. I don't see the sense in flogging a turbo to the point of failure. Comes a point when the GT37 range makes sense though, ask Fineline for experiences on that.

I recall there was a R33 time attack car that made a change to the 1.06 housing, still on RB25. Can't recall whose thread it is in. I agree the GT30 1.06 IW combination should do the job on a RB30. Wanted to go down that line with mine. Cost and availability of housings at the time weren't good and other demands of practicality/service dictated that the solution was high mount/external gate and stealth wasn't part of the mix - easy spanner checking of fasteners and easy removal of components was far more important. With a few horror stories of the GT3582 failing on high boost setups, I think I'd steer to something else if chasing 500rwhp.

That's not the half of it. Should be a big step forward from a chassis standpoint.

The GT30 turbine is marginal for flow capacity on a 3 litre. It is very good but I would only suggest that spec if it's a dedicated road car. Go GT35, Lithium is right.

Who thinks it might be a different 2wd to that one?

^^ Misquoted. I'd not suggested anywhere that Mafia's car made torque to 7000rpm, at any stage. The idea with it was that you'd pull a gear before it started slowing, and ride the wave in a lower engine speed range. That it came on song earlier than a 0.8 setup meant it could get up and boogie without as many downshifts. It never hit a circuit that I was aware of, but it did get a workout at the drag strip. I wouldn't suggest either that a street only engine should perform like a race only setup, but I'll stand by the idea that producing best torque over the widest useable rpm range is a good thing. Wide ratio gaps and slow-ish shift changes are less of an issue that way. Perhaps off thread, but that issue could be covered in the thread relating to your 3076 upgrade.

Interested to hear how the brakes performed. Pity about the engine damage, hope its running for your next event.

Restrictor equipped turbos are off on a tangent, probably worth kicking off a different thread Adrian - I reckons there's some good areas of discussion available but maybe not really applicable to Skyline owners. I see both sides of the ledger with the discussion in this thread, and I'm sure many others do too. AngryRB hit the nail on the head with respect to chasing a wide rpm range. Frequent comments by those running various combinations of GT30 0.82 setups is that they are progressive, responsive, and allow the RB25 to make torque (and keep making it) at revs the OEM gear had already killed the fun. IMO it takes a ho-hum engine character and makes it into a cut-price weapon that would probably give a mechanically stock but boosted-up RB26 a good seeing-to in most situations. But still compromised, because they do trade that little bit of torque the OEM setup gave from 2000-3000. Those owners who experienced the transformation have rarely been negative, but I would recommend a diff ratio change to make the most of it. Mark's comment about accessing torque at sane rpm is valid, and it it's 100% street use then it may be a good thing to have it torque rich up to 6000 but no further. Comes down to preferences, but its best to be properly informed before deciding what you prefer. Just because it can operate over a wider range, doesn't mean you have to - all the time. Licence preservation is a real issue here. Water injection or ethanol fuels are good things, and shouldn't be ignored. But I don't see the point in a mechanical configuration for a daily driven that needs either of these simply to survive, or to be able to wind in reasonable ignition timing to make grunt. Weekend playthings and race/rally are a different story. Perhaps if Mark went with either of these routes, his performance targets will be met. Best response, boosting over 20psi anyway, and run aggressive ignition timing safely so it makes best grunt. The only existing reliable information we have is that his rpm range will remain similar to a stock engine - whether that is a problem is for him to determine. Dave has the experience - recommends external gate even with a small compressor. Experience holds sway over wish lists IMO. Scott has a workable and cost effective solution for housing/gate combination. Both ideas are good, and my thinking is that the bigger/better flowing gate vs an integral gate is the big factor that will permit sufficient venting in that it controls turbine speed, and also turbine inlet pressure. Extension of that idea is that the engine will continue to scavenge efficiently, and make torque into higher rpm without necessarily resorting to ethanol or water injection. Relative simplicity is a good thing, and he still has the option of stepping into those setups later if desired. I'd be doing what I can - within cost limits - to get a result that responds down low without compromising high rpm breathing. The decision for Mark is whether he views minimal visual change under-hood from stock as imperative, or desirable.

Best info is they used a larger disc, and bored the hole slightly larger. It seemed to have occurred reasonably early after they were put on the market, whether it was a retro-fix to existing units, or they ran out stocks and then did the fix probably won't be made known to customers. I think that BHDave had the info at the time he got his upgraded.

By a turn of coincidence I also drove Mafia's 0.63 setup, at the same time my R33 was running a 0.87 Pro S setup. There was definitely more down lower in the rpm range ie 2500-3500 but beyond that point things largely evened out a bit and the 0.63 had done its best by 6500. Not surprisingly the less restrictive 0.87 was freer breathing and it pulled to 7500. Mine was running on 18psi and capped at 290rwkW so when you think of the area under the curve available from 3000-6000 Mafia's car with ~310 was clearly the quicker car. It was all about where it delivered its torque. And it was a good thing for the street. But that also indicates how it was choking up higher. And 20 degrees of full load timing admittedly is probably a touch more than what I'd consider "typical" for a 0.8x A/R setup. I'd be thinking more likely 16-19. What goes unsaid is how much work was required to get Jono's setup to hold boost. Lastly, Mitsubishi has its sights set on a World Rally Championship with the Evo turbo. Production runs were big and they had to get it right. Be interesting to know how many of the 0.63 IW housings were produced by Honeywell.

GL4 specification oils are the go. GL5 gives nicer shifts for road use only, and also result in problems when shafts/gears are spinning faster and the shifts tend to be hurried. After that it becomes a bit of trial/error to find what brand oil you best like in your car.

On that basis you'd have to probably try out the Project Mu. Johnny what are they infamous for?

I think all pads require some sort of bedding procedure if you want the best from them. And when you look at the life expectancy, it's only now and then when you need to go through all that. Either way, I don't go to an event without a couple of short, moderate pace laps before coming back to look stuff over anyway. How have you treated the QFM pads, and did the supplier or manufacturer recommend any procedure or just go hammer them from the get-go?

Go out and do a couple of sight seer laps, light braking only. You're just checking car and track for issues/conditions anyway. Then come in. 10-15mins break. Second time out, couple more laps with moderate braking. Then come in. Likely a bit of wispy smoke. 10-15mins break. Third time out, couple more laps 80-90% effort. Then come in. Should be a fair bit of smoke for a few minutes. 20-25mins break, check tyre pressures, wheel nuts, fuel, oil etc and you're good to go. I have seen them bedded with one session of moderate use. Seem to get long/soft pedal and lots of smoke. Rest them for 30-40 mins and then go racing. Might not get as long pad life but still does the job. Really comes down to driver discipline and what type of track day or event it is you're running in.

R chassis is going to be different, considerably heavier car with higher bias towards front than the S chassis. Work on about 2:1 consumption ratio front:rear for track use, so replace rears every second set of fronts. Track use only I recently saw the fronts gone after effectively two events (double entered for one weekend), so 2 practice days, and 4 track days. 240 track km. They do need to be cooked as described, and allowed to cool. Then they are damn good. It's not like you are spending lots of money trying them out, so there's not a lot of risk involved and they are kind on rotors. And I've been using stock type non-slotted RDA rotors, nothing fancy.

Dan for the coin you will find Lucas pretty much as Peter advises and a good thing worth trying. I found them effective on an R33 and they do not fade or go away even though they smoke like mad when you come back into the pits after a run. They are soft and you'd consider them a consumable item, but definitely not rotor-eaters.

Best bet would be to hunt around and find typical results for GTRS equipped RB25 running on 98. It's not a reasonable comparison for anything running on ethanol or using water injection. Consult with Wolverine for input, but I reckon you'll find the GT28 turbine would limit you to somewhere around 235-245rwkW for a good one. You'd probably see the torque curve up a little earlier, and fall a little earlier, and the on-road drive experience quite a bit different to the GT30. Best description of the GT30 setup is that it is progressive, and throttle position plays a bigger role in how the grunt is delivered. GT28 will do a lot more on part throttle, but doesn't seem to do much more on 100% throttle than say 65%.

Phew sorry for the long post.

Lithium I'd think this 3067 is potentially a half-good thing and I'll try to explain the thinking. I liked Adrian's post because it shows logic in the issues of shaft speed for this and the other GTX series, and also acknowledgement that their primary benefit over the older GT series is flow efficiency at higher pressure ratios. But there are also some aspects of his post that are a touch wide of the mark too, so a like just means "yep I get what you say", even if we're not totally in agreement. Andrew's view that the 3067 is within the realms of some high flows and other offerings is IMO accurate, principally because this is not a high hp unit. Adrian's comment suggesting 500hp capability for that 67mm compressor unit is IMO inaccurate or misinformed. The performance map is saying it's pretty much tapped around the 43lb/min, so it's going to (has to) fall short of the GTX71 and GT76 units for max hp. I'd say it "generally" falls within similar flow capacity as the GT3071 0.5 a/r compressor unit, and the GT2871 52T 0.6 a/r compressor unit. I'm guessing a spread of 40hp would cover them. They have differences in flow efficiency at different pressure ratios, and need different rotational speeds to achieve their best. And they will weigh different amounts, and push air through differently configured housings, so they will have different spool/transient response capability for a given turbine combination. So not exactly the same, but they are rubbing shoulders in a small room. And this means that they will each have turbine combinations that work best for them. Trouble is that's basically limited to housing changes, and internal/external gate setups with their inherent compromises whether that be cost, physical packaging or boost control. Adrian's comment that all turbine/compressor combinations are compromised is 100% accurate, and I'll suggest his recent move from the GTRS to GT3076 setup on his R33 has strongly reinforced that point. (bet he's happy he made the change though... ) And his regularly repeated comments urging for different spec options on the GT30 rotor aren't at all bad, except Honeywell haven't and probably won't released anything like that. I do think this 3067 would give its best if excited early into higher speeds. The few owners who ran the 0.63 I/W turbine combination reported boost control attributes I don't think are optimal, and although that is the most easily fitted from a cost efficiency and packaging standpoint, I wouldn't run with or recommend one of those housings. Where IMO it would shine is by specifying a package that is able to control boost to whatever level is wanted, and avoid spiralling turbine inlet pressures (aka back pressure) because of a sub-optimal wastegate flow-path forcing most exhaust gas to exit via the turbine rather than bypassing. That IMO means using a good design/combination of fabricated manifold and decent size wastegate. And a decent design of post-turbine merge for the wastegate dump. Screamers just aren't acceptable, especially when we are expecting a likely max hp in the 250rwkW range. I'm seeing costs mounting for a relatively narrow focus combination that may be reasonably matched by the highflow alternatives retaining IW setup and close to stock appearances. So yes, I agree to a point that this thing is potentially a good thing but the cost and effort probably outweigh the benefits when you see how Mick's GTX3071 spanked most setups when teamed up with E85. Given his results - and I was fortunate enough to pedal that car so I speak from experience - I couldn't urge someone to go down the path of manifolding and EW instead of retaining stock manifolding and budget for fuel system changes. There is plenty of room for variety and opinion. Mine is not necessarily the best view but I'm sharing it and open to alternatives since we are always learning. I appreciate Mark's had a good go and he still got a good result.