Dale FZ1

It's been a while since Dave's Skyline went into the wall and was replaced with an S13. He was very disappointed with boost control capability of the 0.63 IW setup, really did not stack up for him despite efforts to resolve it.

Lithium I'm pretty much on the same page as Wolverine. I felt the expectations of a powerful response monster were unrealistically elevated, given what the other GT30 combinations were/weren't able to produce. Gut feeling on why Honeywell would release this spec for sale? Marketing and being seen to cover bases without a significant outlay since the compressor components had been developed. They are in the business of making money from selling turbochargers. Results are far from poor and there's no way this 3067 could/should be judged from a dyno sheet. It's got to be driven, and the best measure would be to find a mate with a Skyline running a different spec GT30 and try them back to back. Outpaced by some current offerings but IMO not outdated, old faithful GT3076 may not set the standard but direct comparison with it would shine a light on transient response characteristics which is what the 67 should be about. Lots of positives about the HTA units, maybe that's the spec that sets the bar and I'd personally like a run in one of those myself. If Adrian's information about housing options is correct, it pushes thought on Honeywell's marketing strategy to the GT30 range as being a performance item that is designed to be controlled via external gates. That step neatly shifts responsibility for boost control systems to the aftermarket and choices that individual owners make. How to improve this one? The consensus was indeed 0.63 housing on this unit, but I wouldn't go with one of those in IW form. Unconvinced that they offer the sort of efficiency/boost control capability that's needed. It's only my view, but if the choice had to be 3067, it would be with a 0.63 running a large external gate. Perhaps run the gate off the housing for cost control, but I'd rather see a fabricated manifold and then the changes and costs become fairly high for a 350rwhp install. Starts to push things away from the low-key visuals of this install which will be viewed by many as a priority to avoid road transport compliance issues. Never an easy or simple answer to cover bases.

Evo would chew the 34 up for breakfast. Be aware that the real strength of the Evo is carrying corner speed so you have to be a committed driver. A 200awkW Evo driven correctly would in most circumstances walk away from a 300rwkW Skyline, making more ground on the corners than it's losing on the straights. 250kW would basically lose less ground coming off corners and down the straights. Whether it's going to feel as exciting on the street would depend on how it's driven and how long you intend to keep your licence.

Harry was on this one early. Custom or altered pickup points are not necessarily anything you need to look at. You already have the right sort of adjustable parts installed. It is the case that you need some gear, and some know-how to make the right sorts of adjustment to dial bump steer (aka dynamic toe change) out of your suspension. That comment holds true for both front and rear ends. People get fixed on the notion that if they get static toe/camber/caster right, then it's all right. They forget that the wheels/suspension is in a state of constant movement, and so the camber and toe can constantly change too. What happens dynamically is the bump steer effect, and you should want to work with it and make the car behave predictably rather than try to spit you off the track due to poor setup. The suggestion was made early on that if you don't have the know-how then get organised and take it to a specialist who can set it up properly. No doubt there are good web-based resources that can help, and you could undertake courses to learn more. There are people who derive a living from understanding and fixing these issues. This is probably one of the fundamental car setup jobs that enables the car to handle acceptably.

I'd suggested early on from the advertised performance map that this 67mm compressor needed higher rotational speeds to do its thing, and didn't buy the theorising about windmilling contributing to lower boost thresholds. Mick's views that the tight bends in cooler piping costing hp and some response hold weight, and there may be easily available gains by making changes there. The fact at this point remains this 0.82 turbine combination is making things happen in the same engine rpm range as other GT30s using bigger compressors pumping at lower speeds. Leads me to conclude that advice I received a few years back was correct. Turbine choice/spec has the biggest bearing on turbocharger response and engine response. The compressor is the dumb device being driven by the turbine, and if it doesn't spin fast enough, early enough then it won't do the business. I'd have some concerns whether the 0.63 IW housing is the best choice from a boost control standpoint, but if the targeted boost is going to be 18+psi that might be academic only.

Fix it while you have the best opportunity for the least time/cost.

Looks very stock, well executed.

This is a build to watch. People can spend money and then ultimately end up with far more car than driving ability, Sensible progress should see a proper race seat/harness and then some suspension fettling. Will be tuned in Grant - good luck

That graph indicates the 3067 is at least on par but probably better than the older tech 3071. You couldn't use that as a completely valid comparison though, on the road and via seat of the pants is where it's at for me. Others reckon at the end of a quarter mile is where questions are answered too. Skylinecouple is the only member I know who is running a 3071 0.82 combination. Maybe search for his results. Wolverine is the go-to man here; so drive and enjoy

Agreed that it needs to be driven a bit, and in varying conditions to assess if you're happy with it. And Mick is also right on the money about the actuator. A 10psi unit has no real place on a turbo that won't realistically be making less than 17psi given the performance target. The compressor performance map indicates about 43lb/min of flow, so figure 430-440 crank hp max fuelled on petrol. Fairly long held guesstimate of 80hp driveline losses in a Skyline, and this result looks right in the ballpark. Where this 67mm thing seems to offer an improvement is in the middling flow area. It can pump efficiently at higher PR, so thinking that it needs the boost to come on hard and early. Something like 20-23psi through the midrange looks well within comfortable limits, and it should make a world of difference up to (guessing) 5500-6000rpm. High boost at high engine rpm appears pointless simply making the turbo spin faster for no extra flow. The boost response curve (ie rate of build and point of max boost) isn't significantly different to other GT30 0.82 turbine combinations so perhaps this graph shouldn't be overly surprising. That graph is also a full load 100% throttle result, and it is quite possible that the part throttle transient response is noticeably better than the "old school" but very effective GT3076. Mark hopefully you have a mate with a Skyline running a 3076 so you could try them back to back. The 0.63 housing option is the only thing I could realistically see make this little unit spin up fast/early and shift that graph to the left. There is a tradeoff with high end flow capacity but as Wolverine suggests, this baby compressor won't be pushing through as much air mass as the bigger brothers. So the smaller turbine "should" cope well enough that engine torque doesn't plummet due to rising turbine inlet pressures and decreasing scavenging efficiency in the chambers. As a general comparison with the older and much praised HKS 2835 Pro S, I'd reckon this thing hits similar marks for max output. Pretty sure they were mostly spec'd with the 0.68 housing and sat midway between the GTRS (2871) and 3037 (3076) for both output and response. Making a 250-260rwkW from either a GTRS or the 2835 Pro S wasn't a walk in the park in 2005 when those turbos were pretty new and very highly rated. Wolverine has been through nearly all of those units at different times and so has more cred than any others I personally know. I'd be listening to him.

Paintwork looks really good. Have to admit I was wondering about the decision to go IPRA, knowing that restrictors basically wipe turbocharged Skylines off the "interested" list.

Great stuff, love the shape of these as much now as when they were new. Should go well once set up properly too. Any projected finish date on the build?

Andrew I think we'll split the difference and call it a draw... :yes:

Yep, get the pictures up. Needs more boost if you want bigger numbers. Importantly, how's it drive?

It is a track car, not a Targa car... Queensland laws on ROPS have changed, but that doesn't affect cars that were mod plated before the cutoff date.

240/260Z flares. There is a bit of judicious cutting/bending/folding, mainly to ensure adequate tyre to guard clearance. The fronts actually took more work to get right so that nothing rubbed/bound with the steer tyres on full bump and full lock. Otherwise it is straightforward, same as fitting to any rally car. It's funny seeing the bodywork being attacked with tin snips and cutting disc and a hammer.

I'd like to try regularity events, which I think are a great concept. From what I've seen they run for longer periods so having temps controlled was a priority. We are all sinking reasonable coin into these toys and nobody needs a cooked motor. I haven't seen much evidence of cooling issues with other popular marques eg. MX5, early Z cars so it's just a case of understanding the right fix for these things. The Ford-spec thermo pod was a good but probably not essential addition when you look at the extent of the other cooling mods. After a run the fans cycle in/out during idle-down. And the radiator/fan unit comes out as one, making things easier than with the OEM unit. Interesting to note that the China-spec radiator is doing a reasonable job now it's fed properly.

Great effort. Got to be happy with that, man. Fuel type?

Cooling is an issue I've spent time getting to grips with, and the measures implemented seem to have worked if our first event are an indication. Basically there was a history with this car where I struck cooling problems at speed on the track. I eventually deduced that a cold air feed to the pod was dumping enough air into the engine bay that there was inadequate air pressure differential across the radiator. No airflow = no heat exchange = problems. I implemented a fair few changes, but kept with the Chinese M Spec radiator. Ditched the OEM fan and fitted a BF Falcon thermofan assembly. Dimensions are near spot on. Controlled the fans via the ECU. Installed a fibreglass bar with big openings for airflow, and fabricated some shrouds/ducts to push air onto/into the radiator core without spilling around the sides. Used rubber to ensure air leakage is minimised. Fabricated an undertray that starts at the front bar and finishes past the crossmember roughly near the steering rack. That more or less makes the whole engine bay a duct, dragging air out under the body. I also did a bit of work on making sure the power steering system doesn't run hot and spit ATF out the reservoir. Never liked the drift boy look of fitting an old sock to soak up excess. So it got a dedicated cooler, generally used on automatic transmissions. Ducted with air from the front bar and venting (hopefully) out the hole evidently made for that purpose. Engine oil cooling was done the same way, on the opposite side of the car. First event showed ECT stable at between 88-94 degrees according to the data. Engine oil temps reached max 110 degrees but seemed more regular at 105. And no power steering spits. This was on a 3km track with plenty of higher speeds and as much full throttle as I could handle over 4 laps so there was opportunity for temps to build. But the system seemed to control it even with the car double entered and with little cool-down time between runs. I've previously noted that people are a bit hesitant to comment frankly about whether their cars can control temps properly when run hard on the track. I'll get some pics up in due course.

View of the bodywork. Flares by Topstage Components - quality gear, reasonable price and fast delivery. Needed them to cover the wheels 18x10 +12 offset. It might be possible to run 11 or 11.5 inches on the rear but these are big enough for my current needs. Possibly there are better looking flares out on the market but I couldn't find them. These things are for function and I like the look of them.

There's a lot of P clips and nut-serts (aka riv-nuts) to hold all that stuff in place. Time consuming to do. My sparky is a master craftsman and in lots of areas it's hard to know where he's been. Things look (to me) as if they were always intended to be where placed. Very cluey, and has had a hand in a number of high profile builds. We retained the full OEM loom, mainly to avoid a lot of work for a little gain (ie weight loss), but also avoiding other problems with stuff not working properly. After this job was done, I found a different type of loom fastener that we will use on a build being done by one of my sons. But I'm happy with the under/over setup on this car.

Here's the engine bay. Just another highmount turbo setup. Uses a Kinugawa TD06H4 - 25G 12cm, Hybrid manifold and Turbosmart 50mm gate. Ceramic coated hot bits, and lagged dump pipe. No noisy screamer either, this thing has a merge down low. Quite a lot of time spent trying to keep things away or protected from radiated heat. Brake lines and the loom were the main areas of concern, although the turbo's water and oil lines took time to get done to my satisfaction. Time will tell how effective that is. The oil and water lines used Pro Flow fittings. Much cheaper option and they weren't too challenging to make up. The production tolerances in these fittings are much wider than for Earls. Used a bit of high temp orange flameproof sheath where things ran close to the manifolding, and plastic sheath in other parts to stop things chafing.

I know the potential is there for an easy 50hp, going on what the T67 combination is doing on RB25 engines. This thing has much bigger turbine flow potential/efficiency than the TDO6SL2 / 10cm setup, but probably a bit less compressor potential with the smaller housing employed. With boost cranked up and either E85 or water injection it might even make another 80hp, who knows. The numbers don't really matter to me at the moment, it's got no shortage of straight line speed for what the car is being used for. The big one is that it puts its grunt to the ground off the corners, and it's very predictable. No soaring mid range boost-induced torque surge to deal with, it's a case of power down and drive. Perhaps in time I might give it a tickle, but as it stands everything is relatively understressed and should live for a good while.

Here's something from the engine bay. Clearly there is no ABS, standard size master cylinder and installed a simple aluminium brace to counter any firewall flex. Braided lines were run throughout, with an initial need to shift things away from hot wastegate on the front left hand side. Earls fittings used, definitely not cheap but the quality difference is very noticeable when making the lines. Much less tolerance in sizes.

With a lot of fiddly work this two piece sheet aluminium dash fascia went into place and looks pretty good. The centre piece is held in place with six 5mm metal threads, and pulls clear from the dash with all gauges and wiring in place for easy checking and any service work. Full marks to both MR Sheetmetal and Motorsport Auto Electrics for making this idea take shape. Basic setup with a master switch and a few other switches for various functions. The yellow one is to trigger ECU logging. Gauges for pyrometer, boost and oil temp.