Dale FZ1

If the cat core is intact it should be ok. The WG merge point could have been a little better, and angled a bit more shallow. But it doesn't look too bad. Offset mufflers - depending on internal construction - can provide bigger restriction. Some simply use a slight kink with a full length internal perforated tube. They are little different to one that has a straight internal tube. If yours runs bulkheads and chambers then yes it could be an issue. That mid muffler definitely needs another look, the rear outlet seems to be necked down. Get that measured and be prepared to modify/replace/delete it.

Best turbine performance/efficiency is achieved by the biggest pressure drop across the turbine. Consider that the distance from turbine blade to the 4 bolt flange face is ~50ish mm, and that measurement would not vary significantly whether you are talking 2.5 or 3 inch outlet. The diameter of the outlet will be the same at the exit of the turbine rotor, so the difference is the rate of expansion available over 50ish mm to where the exhaust dump pipe bolts up. I'd suspect the difference won't be enough to be concerned about in most instances. Sure the 3 inch outlet version should be a technically better option, but the question is what are you using the car for, what is the target power output (airflow considerations), and what dump pipe design are you using? 4 inch dump is a pretty massive thing that might pose difficulties in fitting all the pipework into available space. 3 or 3.5 inch will perform very well and far easier to fit down past the firewall. I'd be making sure that your dump uses a shoulder section to give rapid size change from the turbine outlet to whatever dump pipe diameter you choose. That should assist with ensuring best pressure drop across the turbine.

Put 3.5" tails on the cat and neck down after that. Again, the experiences with 3" full systems count for something but you have options of going up a size for when you're ready to be bait for excess noise.

There's a stack of options on the market for RB30E cast pistons, stock bore and oversize. Look at ACL or Precision for starters. There is nothing inherently wrong with quality cast pistons, but they won't tolerate knock. There are a lot of 30DET builds out there reliably making pretty stout numbers on good tunes ie. sensible AFR and ignition maps. Opinions abound on what is the best target static CR. Safe bet is the 8.3 - 9.0 range, with a number of brands supplying the market for forged pistons. Higher end of that scale will give a little more off boost efficiency but tolerate less overall ignition advance under load. If running it exclusively on petrol and regular track, go for the lower comp. If you're going E85 and/or dedicated road car, go for the higher comp.

The common denominator seems to be turbo:engine match, and also compressor:turbine match. Stao you indicated that your 360 degree thrust bearing cures the issues, but is the T67 10cm unit on RB25 in your view just a mismatch of the above factors?

The comments seem to indicate that warranty has been honoured in each instance - correct? Consumer having to wear the $160 shipping cost is not so good but if Kando have rebuilt/repaired at their cost I feel it's hard to have a gripe. 360 degree thrust bearings have been the way to upgrade turbo reliability since Adam was a boy - I seem to recall there is some sort of option along those lines available from Kinugawa?

What boost level were you running on them?

The question is: what's it like to drive?

At the likely power ceiling of this turbo you won't have any appreciable gains by taking the system to 3.5 inch. Identifiable downsides - and I have the experience here - include: packaging difficulties. Physical room available means it is just harder (not impossible) to get the bends to flow nicely and maintain clearance to mechanical bits. Also depending on your ride height (affected by wheel/tyre packaging and any suspension mods) you may have ground clearance issues if running a second muffler between the cat and rear suspension cradle silencing difficulties. because of the issues with making bigger bends fit, you are robbed of some length from the muffler. So you end up with a shorter muffler with less packing. Also the sheer internal volume of the pipe work IMO means pressure waves are belting down the pipe with less interference and able to make their way out the tailpipe with less noise suppressed than a 3". cost. Price up the relative differences between bend sections in 3 vs 3.5 inch. It is significant when building a system. weight. I have no doubt it is possible to get a good streetable result with 3.5 inch, but it would take some work and yours might be a guinea pig. My 3.5 system has a very loud idle but in every other respect comparable to the previous 3" for the ability to suppress drone at motorway cruise, and high rpm noise. I just don't feel that the airflow required for 300ish kW necessitates the bigger pipework. I'd suggest drop the existing system off, consider sticking in a quality aftermarket cat as others have successfully used, and physically inspect your mid and back muffler to ensure neither has been sneakily necked back to 2.5".

Nice work. It's all hidden down deep so difficult to spot anything. The dump pipe design was really a major subject of this thread. Did you get any pics of it prior to installation?

It's a bit hard to think a bloke would seize on a comment from one person that is in stark contrast to loads of comments from others, and accept that as being valid/reliable. Yes, you really need to get the thing fuelled correctly and ignition timing optimised for a deeper/easier breathing engine. Then you will know how it really goes. Andrew and Lithium are on the money. Expect it to come on a little later and more progressively than the GTRS. Expect you will have to change down gears a little more frequently. Expect it will pull a lot harder for a lot longer. It should make full boost - assuming 17-20psi range is the target - between 3800-4200 depending on how optimised the physical install is (no big lips or ledges) and how your particular engine responds to fuel/ignition changes. You're on a well worn path so the experiences should largely be the same. Slightly smaller compressor inducer won't make any appreciable difference to spool (slight at best) but if you were chasing max outputs it would fall slightly short of the more common 56T. It'll be a damn good match but as with every setup will involve acceptance of what it does and the compromises that entails. Once it's setup I reckon you should meet up with Wolverine and try a simple back-to-back with his 33 and give us some decent feedback on any contrasts between the two.

Making assumption that full load fuelling is right - you'd want to be in the 11.5 - 12.0:1 AFR on petrol. L15, L16 rows might be worth revisiting, try -2 adjustment and see how things respond from knock perspective. I wouldn't have absolute faith in the sensor outputs, you would really do well to run it on a dyno and use chassis ears (aka knock box) to physically listen for any signs of knock. Have a good look in the L5-L8 rows, in rpm range 2500-4500. You might add 2-3 degrees there and see if it makes the thing any perkier on cruise.

Post some pics of your setup please Adrian If you've retained the stock airbox (pics will tell us that) that should go a long way towards muffling the whistle as it spools. I noticed mine got a fair old shriek somewhere up around the middle/high rpm range (4500-6000ish) when on full boost (for me that was ~18-19psi) but nothing exceptional otherwise. With an eye on the ball you shouldn't expect it to be a boost-happy unit if that means it jumps into meaningful positive manifold pressure at 2500rpm with light throttle. You'll get used to the progressive delivery and the likely need to make gearchanges in places where the old GTRS would give those extra few Nm of torque. Fact is (IMO) it's the comparative lack of response in those situations that gives less airflow and results in less fuel burn hence economy. But the engine works so much better over a wider range that you wouldn't want it any other way once it's got proper fuelling and ignition to suit. It's hard to believe that ~6mm difference in impeller sizes can make so much difference to overall performance characteristics. On topic of this thread, I hope you covered the nice black paint on the dump pipe with lagging before you installed it? I found the regular glass weave from truck spares cost effective and not that difficult to work with. Just wear rubber gloves and dunk the wrap in water before you actually work with it. The stuff pulls down nice and firm as it dries off.

But it's the pics of your pipework and fitup that we want, given that's the topic of this thread...

You may recall I advised of a noticeable improvement in light load fuel consumption when I went up from GT2871 highflow to the GT3076. It should take a few (2-3) more degrees advance at higher loads than the GTRS at similar points on the map. You've just made the engine a lot more comfortable and the tune will show you that. Get the ranga shots up too.

Nothing wrong with the heat bag. Not sure the flash red advertising is exactly consistent with the "stealth" appearance objective thrown about? Guessing the advertising cost a fair whack over the Plain Jane alternatives. Either way you're about to step into a whole new engine performance league so I hope you're organised to tune as soon as possible.

100-150 to get a turbo bag. 150-175 for ceramic coating a housing. Neither option is terribly exxy. Stainless is more expensive material, and of course you can reliably wrap mild steel. Budget around $5/metre for exhaust wrap, and you'll need about 6 metres to be sure you've covered enough. Bonus with mild steel is you can try something different if you're not happy for some reason. And you can duplicate in stainless later on if you want it to last forever. Surely you could swing a deal with Mick-o if you ask nicely. As he'd posted previously, his work was good enough to flow 450rwhp worth of airflow so it will also handle yours.

A decent radiator works or mechanic will have an analyser that detects exhaust gases in coolant. Easy test to do in conjunction with your compression test will resolve whether you have any HG issues. The GK Tech fan did not get good wraps from others here who had (evidently) tried them. Try an OEM fan and clutch centre. Post up a few pics of the engine bay as you have run the thing. Want to see what ducting / shrouds you do / don't have in place.

Turbo bags work well enough, also reasonably easy to fit. Only downside might be if you get a bit of oil leakage into the beanie material. Ceramic coating will cost about the same, probably work about the same too. ACL heat shield works great, but will take a lot of effort to fit around the area where you want it. Go with the beanie idea and get the dump finished.

Hamish had a good result. My sums from changing housing and fuel suggest somewhere around 320-330kW. But I'll stick with the notion that it's a stretch to get there. The 2835 Pro S is smaller in what I consider the critical dimensions vs the GTX3071 Mick-o ran. Stands to reason it will work harder to get to the same mark - smaller compressor inducer, smaller dimensions for the turbine so it can't flow quite as well. If OP wants more, yes I'd agree a complete turbo spec change could be warranted. A Pro S housing won't be easily found. Running E85 might just put the whole shebang in a happier place and give him the desired result.

There's been another thread in the last week, also discussing below-par results. Follow the comments and check your inlet system for boost leaks then come back with the results from that.

290rwkW from a 2835 Pro S 0.68A/R running on pump 98 is a very strong result if it's an unopened motor with no internal airflow mods. Upsized housing will change the character of the engine with not so much flattening out after 6000ish rpm, and a little bit longer to gather its skirts down lower. On pump 98 I'd think you will effectively move the torque band upwards 500rpm with the power number bumped 10-15kw tops but only if everything is optimal. A GTX based compressor would allow higher and more efficient flow than would the GT unit you have, so I'd have to suggest the existing unit might sneak another 10kW top end (6500rpm plus) and maybe 15-20kW across the mid range (4000-5500rpm) by going E85 with the existing compressor. Go search and I think you'll find Mick_o hit around 340rwkW on E85 with a GTX3071 0.82 A/R setup with 25ish psi boost. By way of comparison that unit has a higher flowing compressor that is also more efficient at high boost. You might get near that result but don't be shocked if it doesn't/can't. The improvement from E85 isn't just a bigger top end number, it livens things up substantially in the mid range.

Yes it can be (is) fiddly and time consuming, but it pays off with far fewer overheating issues at high load / high speed.

Ensure there is a decent seal around the gaps between radiator and the support panels, so that air has to pass through the core rather than allow leakage to flow around it into the engine bay. Single sided adhesive rubber/foam stripping works wonders even if it looks low-rent

Retaining the OEM under-engine splash tray goes a long way to helping maintain airflow through the radiator core at higher speeds. There has to be a pressure differential across the core before airflow takes the heat away.