Dale FZ1

+2 The unit you're looking at can be correctly referred to as a 3076. You really want the one that also goes under the name of 3037. Identifiable by a 6 (twin) bladed compressor and the 0.6 comp ported shroud cover. Depending on trim it will flow more air (more power capacity) but crucially it is more efficient at higher turbocharger speeds. As pictured, the unit you've looked at is a 7 (twin) bladed compressor, running in a 0.7 comp cover. It can pump a decent whack of air but lacks the efficiency and is not the unit you'd really want. The GTX3071 may be worth a look if you're stuck on Garrett product and want something of roughly equal capacity. Be aware that running this setup on low boost because you haven't spent on upgrading the other parts will lead to general dissatisfaction - it won't respond the way your current stock (yes?) turbo does down low. Get the money together for ECU, pump, injectors, clutch, tyres etc. 350kW for the street will be difficult to use effectively at the best of times. Anywhere around 280+ is heaps, is easier to achieve, and gives you potentially longer engine life. Bang for buck I would consider a Kamak/Kinugawa setup with external gate as a real and viable alternative to what you're proposing. There is a long thread on them which should help lots.

Repco

+1 Sounds like hard work. Conventional plastic jerry can with breather hole size bored out = quick dump of fuel into the tank with hardly any effort.

So you've used the standard bores? How did they measure up for ovalling or barrelling? I like the work you've done to make it all right, just not sure if there was a relatively important step missed by not having it bored. Regardless of that, the results are impressive and give a good idea of what a quality fabricated exhaust manifold can do for efficient gas flow and power production. It's got to be a good thing to drive on the street? I have previously noted the tendency for 30DET builds running stock cams to nose over by 6000rpm. This one seems the same?

Would you post up an overlay of torque v boost (and rpm on the X axis). It would help to visualise what things look like.

I used the 805C grind, same as Cubes and after consulting with him well in advance of the build. That spec has proved very effective although I still don't feel that the cam timing has yet been optimised either. It seemed that the biggest issue with a 30DET running stock type cams was for the torque to fall away quickly after 6000rpm, and I simply wanted a wider operating rpm range than that. Peak torque from 3400-6900 suggests Cubes got it right back when he recommended the Tighe grind, and I honestly believe that my 0.87 GT3037 Pro S turbine spec is not letting the engine breathe to the potential that the cams are capable of. Either a 1.06 GT30 or a GT35 would probably see it keep making useable torque for another 500+ rpm, but I haven't spent the $$ on replacement rotating bits and just wasn't interested in spinning it that hard. In short, what I have worked, similar to Cubes. I have played with cam timing a bit, and even a few degrees via adjustable gears brings noticeable change in torque delivery. Remember this is a hybrid so there will be some benefit (and satisfaction) of ending up with the sort of delivery that suits you (eg. beefier bottom end or extending the top end). Mine is making 410+ rwhp but importantly it runs strong to 7000, delivers down low and is driveable. I reckon it has a bit more via cam timing changes and we might chase those 10-15 horses before next year's sprint series starts. But currently all parts are working together, within spec. I can tell you that my setup is very hungry for ignition timing, and seems very knock resistant as though scavenging is very effective. As above, yes things are hard to get "right". I noticed someone had posted comment suggesting setting it up via a dial indicator. This is only correct if you are running a solid lifter setup, because unless there is oil pressure in the hydraulic lifters (meaning the motor is running), then the cam lobe is not acting directly on the valve. There is excess clearance. Simple as that. Degreeing an engine on the bench is entirely practical provided you know the cam spec, and the valve train is solid (meaning a known clearance). As Guilt Toy says, it is a long haul of trialing to get things in the happiest position. Setting it up with drive belt covers removed and budgeting for enough dyno time to trial a few variations on cam timing will get you there, with the longest time waster being to remove the CAS, adjust the exhasut cam gear and then re-set your base igntion timing before going again. Realistically there is about 6-7 dyno pulls but a fair amount of go-slow while you make the adjustments on that exhaust gear. Then it's an overlay of the best runs on inlet + exhaust, and hopefully a final run to validate your particular settings.

Give credit where it's due. A member is trying something that most people only get to talk about. Yes there may be some negative impacts on turbocharger life depending on how the water is introduced; and no there may be no actual performance improvement depending on what (if any) changes are done to the fuel and ignition mapping. There is a wealth of information to be found on this forum: http://www.waterinjection.info/ But the OP is doing his best to share results in a quantifiable form. I say lets see what transpires and learn from the experience.

Are you expecting that turbocharger response/spool rate will change by an appreciable amount by introducing water into the compressor inlet stream?

Search on topics by Cubes regarding cams. He played with factory grinds for a while and shared the results. I've not heard much/any negative reporting on the 25DE cams regarding a tendency to promote/induce knock simply because of their spec. Reduced overlap effectively increases trapping capacity of the inlet charge within the cylinder. That will improve general fuel consumption, but also reduces scavenging of the cylinder. ie. less of the residual exhaust gases will be pushed out with the assistance of the incoming boost charge. Therefore reduced overlap can ultimately have a negative approach towards torque production at high boost + rpm. But it's not a direct comparison with only valve overlap changed, since those factory cams are very different even if they are very mild specification. The 25DE cams were designed for use in a naturally aspirated application, so I wouldn't be at all surprised that the 20DET spec is better suited when phased as per factory setup. Are you running adjustable cam gears? That's the optimal approach to changing your cam timing/phasing and alter overlap. Gears are readily available and not super expensive. By changing your phasing this way, you may well get the best of both worlds. The 25DE exhaust cam has slightly less lift, but the lobe holds the valve open marginally longer (yes?) so there might be a benefit there if you trial it with adjustable gears. Depending on engine spec, the sputtering idle can result from a lean condition. Ignition will also have a significant contribution here. Spark events that are too late (retarded) in the compression stroke simply results in a poor running engine, doughy response, and elevated EGT. That includes cruise (low load) conditions. I had interpreted the use of new CAS and smoother running as probably giving an improved/accurate timing signal for sparking, which is not unknown considering the gear we are using has got some age on it by now. Either way, you've got some changes being made which will hopefully solve the problem. I'm interested to see the outcomes.

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/topic/347726-kando-dynamics-turbo/ Read this thread, gives an idea on what works for a similar output on similar engine capacity and boost requirements. 38 might be a bit undersized.

I'm unsure how you'd base-time the thing without using a timing light. That aside, if the signal is not looking scattered after a change of CAS, sounds like a step in the right direction. Better/more accurate ignition timing could well account for the different sound, and if it's running bugger all timing in the whole map then of course it will feel doughy. Sounds like a bit of mapping will help immensely. All being good it should take somewhere in the vicinity of at least 17-18 degrees at full load, which will make it stand up. I don't recall the exact spec difference between the 25DE and 20DET cams, however neither are anything other than mild. So they should both work ok and give a fairly quiet engine note. At least he's considering that as an issue too. Keep us posted

There would be a sweet spot for gate sizing vs turbocharger flow capabilities. At a certain size, as the valve is lifted off its seat, more gas than necessary will bleed off and slow the turbine more than desired so you get an oscillation in turbo speed and a wavy boost curve. It's a bit like the effect that you can get when running a VH45 throttle body, and the slightly jerky response when cracking the throttle at idle. Anyone who's experienced an old school multiple carb setup with bigger than ideal size throttles will understand what I'm getting at. It's good to use a combination that works. A large gate will have no problem with venting enough gas, more the problem is to have a fine enough degree of control. Obviously Simon's setup works.

100% agreed. In practical terms I'd doubt if either a GTX3071 or the "old spec" GT3076R 56T fitted with the 0.82A/R turbine housing would vary enough to notice in terms of spool, or top end airflow capability. There may be some slight difference in transient response feel (surely the lighter/smaller impeller spins up quicker into its speed range), but for me it's most likely a marketing driven release to pre-empt the EFR series release from BW. And an RB25 with GT30 rear end that's producing 17-18psi around 37-3900rpm, and holding torque well up towards 6000rpm does feel quick and behave in a linear/predictable fashion. The difficult part is being honest enough with yourself to know whether you can access and use that sort of torque delivery or otherwise stick with a GT-RS type/size of delivery and response.

Got any in-car? If you're competitive and enjoying it, win-win I'd say NZ gravel roads would be much kinder to you than the goat tracks commonly encountered in Queensland.

Guessing an R32 is not a BDA basher, but how does it perform on gravel? Nose heavy bias give any complaints regarding balance?

1. compression check 2. inspect coolant 3. consider lifting out the fuel rail and visual inspection of the tips. It would be odd to find only one affected by carbon buildup.

A season or two of competition would surely have identified setup weaknesses for the engine. If you've got no evidence of oil supply/delivery problems, then it sounds like the OEM pump design is ok for the application. Whether that particular pump should be replaced might be an issue to resolve after good inspection. Are you freshening the engine, or planning on development work and spinning it faster?

ACL product. Check their catalogue. Go to Repco. Great stuff to use, economical price wise and effective in containing heat.

I do believe that the catch can has to be big enough and baffled internally to allow it to function as an oil/air separator. Also it can't hurt to have a look at what is going on under the cam covers either. There is a lot of heavily oil-laden air being shifted through those lines, so your system has to be able to knock the heavy mist down. Here's a build that has been experiencing the same sorts of issues. Check from about post #101 http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/topic/352798-zoids-gts-build/page__st__100 And I also think that if you are using a full synthetic engine oil, go to a mineral base.

If a single camshaft is not that expensive, why not give it a try? Surely they offer the potential to give that top end lift, and you don't have any issues with taming the mid range down a bit. I have fixed cams in my 30DET, and no complaints for what I want it to do. Tighe 805C, 8.9 lift 265 duration. There is no massive hump in the torque curve, so it just knuckles in and drives. Gives a very linear acceleration right through the range. But its rev ceiling is down 1100 on yours and I've never dragged so take from my comments what you can.

How much hard/high load running has the thing actually done? And what spec oil has it run (and currently running)? Sounds like there may well be issues in bedding those rings properly yet. Different experiences for different builds, but it appears that chrome rings aren't always easy to achieve a good bedding until the engine has had plenty of work. Also don't make the move to full synthetic engine oil too quickly - it will work against you getting rings bedded. That's something well documented in motorcycling circles. The earlier comment regarding filters on your catch can are close to the mark too. There might be lots of filter area, but have a look at the total cross sectional area in the hoses running from the cam covers, and compare it to the size of the nipple your catch can filter is mounted to. It is reducing, effectively makes a venturi so the air velocity increases as it is pushed out of the catch can. Give some thought to redesigning your catch can for internal baffling, and at least another filter. Heavy breathing is fairly common but doesn't seem to be much talked about as there are so many different approaches to sorting it. And you probably won't see the issue raise its head in thousands of road km because you can't drive hard enough, long enough to create the same conditions. FWIW I've seen Subarus spit 1 litre (and more) in 3 laps of the Morgan Park "A" track (pretty short circuit). Another mate has told me of an engine that took an entire season of racing for his heavy engine breathing to resolve itself as the rings finally bedded.

Exactly. Removes the compromise associated with fixed cams where you can have either beefed up low-mid range, or top end torque, but not usually both. So essentially VCT helps both parts of the torque curve.

VCT offers a better compromise between low-mid range torque, and stopping the torque falling off at high rpm (ie helps the top end power production). Fixed cam timing brings compromises, but you can obviously move things around to a degree by playing with cam timing. It would be interesting to see/compare the exact cam lobe specs with what you're considering vs what you are running, but it appears the total lift is close enough to the same, and the duration figure changes a small amount. Possibly you can gain more top end, but you'd think the compromise would be a disproportionately high drop in the low-mid range torque due to deletion of the VCT. I'd think that some cam combinations would offer very good scavenging and hence lower retained combustion chamber temps, more high end torque etc. But I'd also think they would be generally associated with increased noise, dropped mid range torque, and generally increased fuel consumption. It's just a matter of moving the balance point of compromises around. If the cam is a "drop in" spec ie. no clearancing required in the head, it would be a simple matter of installing and tryinhg the thing out. Disable the VCT actuation via the ECU and try the thing out.

So you're running, Noel?

Given the boost level and rpm cap, the results look pretty good to me. Quite strong mid range stick. What is your exhaust manifold setup like, and how quiet/restrictive is the exhaust system? Be worth looking at them after checking your wastegate and boost controller. My guess is that if you get it to hold boost and run it to 7000 you'll hit the target.