hypergear

It is M14x1.5

Yes. I'm considering that. Seen few in the past few month but prefer some thing in better conditions. But need to sell at least one of my test cars first, running out of parking spaces.

Some more testing and evaluation results. This is our last BB ATR43G3SAT prototype turbocharger on R34 with P98 fuel internally gated. Note the linearness in power and torque curve to 5000RPM. Turbo made 308rwkws @ 20psi.

The one on the dyno is bush. The G3Sat is ball bearing.

ATR43SS2 making 294rwkws @ 20psi P98 fuel: Hypergear turbo z32 afm 770cc inj power fc ecu and boost t running 20psi Been working on few new prototypes G3SAT turbos running Hybrid ball bearing combinations lately. I think I'm hitting a wall of getting any better then 20psi @ 3550RPM without comp surge. The drive ability is great however. I might be giving it to Mr Richo and see if that improves his track times.

You did test one of my older turbos on the car, I have no complaints with that result. The new BB GT series was not tested on any of your cars and there is a big difference between the two. You can use Nathan's boost log to compare mine. I've fitted quite Garrett cores into M35 turbos since last year, more results will be in shortly. I will use factory turbo's base run for all boost comparisons. Stock Turbo in 3rd gear with boost controller: M35RV1 Third Gear factory solenoid :

Get C34. No M35 junk.

Regardless. M35RV1 (Garrett GT2971R). Full stock car with pod and 3 inches turbo back exhaust only: Red: After turbo upgrade in 4th. 218awkws @ 17psi Green: Stock turbo in 4th. 160awkws @ 12psi Orange: Third unfinished run. This is a super responsive turbo for the M35.

Of course your convert is locked from the start of the run with a switch. That made your unlocked run looked almost identical. Thats fine, I will have the same device installed, and will head back for another run. That turbo is quite responsive to drive, there's customer feedback on that, you can ask feedbacks from the previous owner of my car who has test driven that vehicle.

Sorry I can not agree with this. None customer was used as a test subject, private tests has been conducted and arranged by Scotty before any turbos has been sold. I have all dyno data of the early prototype M35 high flows conducted in 2013 Feb. The product is improving over time in various of directions like anything else. So there will be an gap in performance to earlier products. How ever I'm pickup components worth upgrading and try to minimise that gap for early customers as possible, and that is usually free.

Tuner advised my car has 17inch wheels which Scotty has 18 inches wheels with higher tyre profile. The wheel diameter makes the reading skewer to the left on a roller dyno, if I put a set of 20 inches on with high profile tyres, the results will be again different. 2ndly my convert doesn't lockup, what you are seeing there is partial throttle ramp before it comes to an lock then full throttle. Hence the differences on this car with free and locked converter on paper. Auto don't usually lock up on road driving, using an pulse locked converter, compare the unlocked runs of mine will give you an more accurate comparison. also notice 30kws differences at 70KM this is range where the auto uses mostly for road driving. My car made peed of 291awkws @ 22psi, while Scotty makes 300awkws @ 30psi. That is not that much of a differences for 8psi boost, and there is no way I'm going to run 30psi on a stock car.

I'm making changes while you persisted. While I'm the third person telling you the major fault with that spring hooked actuator design, and today let me be the first person to you there is a problem with your T3x 360 degrees thrust bearing assembly working with a big wheel in M35 comp cover. Ps. Compare with 17inch wheels and unlocked converter. then compare where the power is been registered down low. That will tell you where advantage of BB sits on a roller dyno.

LoL still haven't figured out the differences between cold and hot side turbo ends are Scotty , There are lot more then one way to firmly bolt the thrust plate in, the bolts are not must, and what does that has any thing to do with cold side wear? If you are just wish to pick whats CHRA components are made by Garrett, then I can tell you my whole CHRA is made by Garrett. About the cold side wear, this doesn't happen over night, it takes some time for it to happen. I've rebuilt other bush bearing high flowed M35 turbos had similar issues. Which is also reasons I've reduced my compressor size over time and ultimately moved towards Garrett BB cores.

True in applications when the trust wear is on hot side, when dealing with RB, SR, 1J, 2J and majority of engines M35 has an opposite scenario as the thrust flog is on the cold side as comp wheel is pushed into the thrust plate, and there is no room to fit anything under the back plate to stop that thrust wear. This has some thing to do with restriction in the size of the comp housing as well as the size of cams and inlet runners. Garrett has a new improved ball bearing cartridge this year specifically aimed to at this problem, which is what currently been used. And there is no comparison to BB response in factory auto on/off boost. As you already know the actuator tension on the M35 can not control boost creep in a free flow system. The only way to control that is by reducing the size of effectiveness of the compressor wheel or increase the efficiency of the turbine. Both methods will affect Maximum power as well as response. Any one can make an actuator bracket, at least I'm offering free solutions. Perhaps you should've picked on the factory actuator assembly instead of those $5 Bunnings springs three years ago, and we should not have this problem.

I'm selling a BB Garrett GT/X vs a bush bearing what ever at more reasonable price, guess what is more attempting. Our tuner told me you have uncontrollable 34psi boost spike then tapering to 28psi. I believe this might be the wrong set of wheels in the wrong housings, not because its efficient. After all no one wants to run 34psi in a stock built engine and transmission Scotty, and this information should not be hidden. You came to me for M35 developments in 2013, you had the car, I took your feedbacks, we were in this project together. you published the sump oil restrictor in 2014 in resolving oil delivery issues, that was already known and worked. The initial SS2 development issue rise to me wasn't response, but to fix the control boost creep, mind you that was a 21psi creep at 6500RPM making 301awkws. I did a whole lot of work in upgrading the OEM internal gate assemble, comp wheel re-sizing an turbine alternative to keep a steady 17psi, and later was response, so everything went ball bearing, please don't say I did nothing to in reaching your goals. Now owning two Stageas and look back. Main problem with the old SS2 is OEM actuator gets blown open, factory wastegate does not all allow a full 90 degrees movement. I'm in the process of engineering some actuator assemblies that can open a fully 90 degrees wastegate bunk on the same time holds onto an unmodified internal gate lever. The actuator have made a very noteicable difference to both response and power, They will be given to our M35-SS2 owners free of charge. Im been in the M35 turbo game for more then 3 years, and there are other very specific reasons of why I have to go to Garrett BB CHRAs, I will put explanation to it with photos in an later date.

sorry its 330awkws. not rwkws. broke an gear box already. Its very fast.

The sr20vet is running around 20psi keeping it safe on tracks. Yes definitely recommended bb for the new sat turbos, does make a notice able difference to throttle response.

Video from Team Lori's SR20VET blue bird. Car's making 330awkws on E85 fuel running our ATR45SAT turbocharger:

Yes it is. The recommendation would be working with our high pressure actuator, that will cost you $990 inc oil line. That way the waste gate bunk can travel all the way to a full 90 leaving gate port wide open. Gives abit more top end . In terms of the housings I can swap it over for you as I have a spare.

There are many ways of firmly hold the thrust plate to the bearing housing. Method mentioned above can be used when working with sump oil restrictor, how ever it can no work along without alterations to bearings and bearing housing. Oil restrictor was not mentioned by you during our initial development. Hence the later announcement about the sump oil restictor. The thrust wear I found was under the opposite side, which has nothing to do with the how its been held. I think check your intense r after few thunsand Ks for Thrust wear. 2ndly, I was never asked to build a turbo that boost spikes to 34psi. I was asked to build a turbo to maintain a minimum boost pressure of under 20psi that is boost control able. I'll only be engineering turbos for M35s that holds minimum boost of 20psi and below as a sell able product. After all we don't live in history. All my current retail versions of M35 highflows runs off genuine Garrett CBB centers. That provides superior throttle and boost response without having to alter factory oil delivery systems.

For a VQ turbo discussion I'm pretty open about it. They all Bronze bearings and steel collars there isn't much of ways around those. Because VQ25 engines doesn't seems to be pumping as much oil flow compare to RB or SR engines, so for T3 bush assembly to work it needs the thrust assembly to be bolted down and an small oil restrictor fitted just under the thrust bearing feed plus a angled tapper on the journal, that solves the oil delivery issues. But far as I know majority of the early high flows I've done are still working fine with all oil restrictors drilled out. On the thrust side, I found with the VQ25, on high boost, the thrust wear is normally under the comp wheel, this is due to the limitation of comp housing as well as the inlet manifold and cams. Which turns out opposite to other inline engines. To solve all above problems, its just best going ball bearing, and I'm using Genuine Garrett CHRAs on all of the M35 high flows that I currently do, With high power, due to turbine housing design there is no boost control internally gated, I'm controlling it with compressor wheel size. I won't be getting much more power at given boost level. However I'm using an larger wheel on this one of high flow.

First of all thank Matt for the opportunity to trail this particular build, we will be using the larger ATR43SS2 CBB profile made for RB25det engines in OEM housings, while further measures working with heavy thrust load on high boost. Making an performance high flow that suit majority of engines, we can't have it running base pressure of 30psi, lots of conventional efforts has been adapted getting a stable boost pressure of 18 to 20psi. Ceramic ball bearing system provides superior throttle response, the car picks up and move on very light throttle on or off boost, this is some thing that traditional bush bearing assembly can not provide. On the same time due to the nature of the bearing assembly they requires very little oil to run, means there is no need to modify a good working OEM oil supply system. There are limitations and unknown factors for this evaluation, hopefully we can see some good numbers.

And this is probably close to as responsive as possible for the power made on a R34 GTT factory RB25det Neo, running newly developed ATR43SAT BB internally gated bolton turbo on P98 fuel. 317rwkws @21psi, 20psi @ 3550RPM.

Depending on how big.