GTScotT

You have had something go pop and then the motor suddenly stopped. Even if it didnt go pop a sudden stop does not indicate something that would gradually die, IE fuel pump or reg. Fact is you still have fuel and spark, start thinking more mechanical based. And no piston and valve contact via a snapped cam would not result in crunch sounds. The cam may have snapped at a point it did not make contact OR it could have snapped and the 1 x piston to valve contact moment would have spun the cam back to a closed position like it did when it happened to me. Experience at work ^

Chances of consult cable working is minimal... Unless your CAS is working but way off you wont get any reading from the consult. The fact you have spare and fuel verifies this. Do the checks I mentioned. Checking coolant and oil for contamination only works SOME of the time when checking for a HG. You must comp test. And yes, snapped cam = valve meets piston officially after years of anticipation and sexual frustration.

Short of having someone help you, you cannot do any damage by trying it. Simply use a volt meter to test which wire is positive and negative from the controller (red will be + but just check anyway and its good to see how many volts it has). Then match that voltage (if its 12v just use a car battery) and put power to the solenoid. It will only alternate open and closed if you connect it the right way...... Otherwise it wont open/close properly if its back to front. Hope this makes sense. If its any consolation I think yellow should go to black and blue to red. GL

I have experienced your exact symptoms on 3 events. 2 of them were the head gasket, and the third was a snapped exhaust cam. I highly recommend doing a comp test first, as if a cam snapped you will get a bung reading too and then take off the rocker covers. Hope it works out OK. If your in Sydney/Bankstown local I can lend you a comp gauge if you need be.

Then go and buy one. We eagerly await your mediocre result.

What is to justify? I said its a gamble as there are no results. Plain and simple. No results to JUSTIFY buying it. Facts are, its made for the stock turbo and not for a GT30. You will need to machine it to fit the GT30 core. The AR is relevant to the tiny stock turbo. The wastegate port will be sized to suit the stock turbo. It costs $700. Noone has seen one work or do a good job with the same GT30. More facts: the garrett .82IW housing is proven to work. It will cost you half of the AVO housing and will not need to be modified to fit. It is designed to work with the turbo you want to use. It can hold the boost you will want to run. It can flow the power the turbo is capable of making. If you want to argue the point further, please see the hypergear thread.

Let me make things simpler. When I say, does not have ANY, that means you will not find ANY. There are no results from an AVO housing. No results = $700 risk, and yes that is how much they cost. On the other hand, its about half that for the garrett item that is proven to work. Your cash, your call, either way I wont be 'justifying' anything. GL.

Come to Aus first and Ill take you for a wrap in a Hyundai Excel. I will have my passengers handbook ready with the accidental death policy highlighted.

I encourage the to build me a 1000hp, E85 guzzling, 8000rpm spinning, not laggy RB30 with an EFR9180. Thanks,

You have been advised wrong mate. That is guess work as it is well known the AVO housing does not have any solid results to back it up. It is also known that the said housing is made for the stock turbo and you will need to have it milled to suit the GT30 core. Therefore you may expect results somewhat close to what you would get with an OP6 housing on the back of your turbo, AKA f**king terrible. The OP6 wont flow what your going to ask of it and wont hold boost properly, so I do not anticipate the AVO will be much better. If you are serious, get a GTX3071 with whatever front it bloody comes with and the genuine garrett .82IW rear housing. That is the only way to go if you want it to be internally gated. Now enough broken record questions and go buy a turbo.

"CURRENT R32 Gts-t 410rwkw CLICK HERE FOR THE BUILD THREAD! " So wheres the 410rwkw update? LOL

In simple english, RB engines dont have cam bearings. The head and the cam journal caps act as the bearings. If they are worn out you will need to have the journals tunnel bored and may even be looking at a new head.

Its not that I believe the billet factor to be responsible for the change in efficiency, its that I feel the design they wish to pursue (which is directly responsible for this character) is difficult to create in a cast compressor wheel. I think they have moved to a billet wheel as a means to easily manufacture the said design whilst taking advantage of other benefits such as weight savings. This is my personal thought on why they have gone to a billet wheel and obviously could be factually wrong, yet I would say the theory is as good as anyone elses. While the possibility of these turbos still exceeding current tech at normal boost levels is valid and entirely possible, I believe turbos work best in all respects when pushed to the upper limit of their efficiency. Thus not giving me full faith in the turbo. I would rather run a 3076 at 20oddpsi than I would one of these, knowing these would shine at 30+

So I thought I would take one of these into consideration.. Knowing that the turbo will give its best result on the higher right side of the compressor map, I took the 7076 into consideration to find that best results will be acheived at over 2 bar of boost. Considering I want to run 98 ron and a factory standard long motor, I cannot see the advantage in these bloody billet compressor turbos. The appealing point for me right now, is T4TSIW... This is making the prospects of using my T4TSIW 3576 in the garage a lot more appealing.. Maybe simply swap the CHRA for a standard 3540 item and see how it goes.

Link to BW results? I think it is definitely relevant to the GTX thread, it is the competitors product... It would be good to compare the two

There are a couple items I would like to bring to light, considering the extent of your suggested build, you could ditch the HKS Vcam setup. Costs involved in prepping a RB26 head would be close or equal to that of an RB25 head, which has native VCT. No need for expensive Vcam setups. The advantage of the Vcam is applying it to your existing big budget build. In this case with custom manifolds on both hot and cold side the RB25 head would be at no disadvantage to the RB26 head. Secondly I would like to note that the quick spool valve is still under heavy scruitiny and a conventional TS setup would be the safer bet.

The T piece goes to the factory bleed valve boost controller, you will not want to use this in a modified setup.

Have you got a full loom to work with? You will find wirring diagrams by the dozen online, they arent hard to do. Im no auto electrician and have done quite a few on my own on the driveway. GL

Quality of the thread just turned to shit.. I am sick of hearing about hill billy quick spool valves for christs sake, just leave it to the yanks already.

Im sure this would sell like hotcakes on a VL forum. GL with your sale.

Seeing as you havent done injectors or any engine hardware yet, I would say drop an RB25 in with your RB20 cams and forget about the VCT. Simply bolt all your peripherals to an RB25 long motor and intake manifold and get it retuned. The difference should be everything your looking for plus more, much more torque, better response and about 220rwkw on the stock injectors I believe. I just dont see a problem with your dyno sheet to be honest. If you were in NSW I would sell you my old RB25 for cheap, too bad it looks like your in SA. GL

Short of the above, toymods forums also love the .63 AR on 35Rs. Maybe try put a for swap thread on that forum. Those guys dont seem to have a problem running the small housings on JZ's the way we do on RB's.

+1 cams too big. Realistically It feels more like you have simply tried to tune the car rather than perform any significant upgrate. I see the -7s as a steel wheeled stock turbo, not SIGNIFICANTLY better (people will hate me for the comment) and you already had that as such with the N1 turbos. The only other power getters I see are the cam gears, manifolds and intake kit. The only one actually doing some work IMO is the cam gears which is negated by the oversized cams. The manifolds and intake kit would yield minimal results at best with the -7s. All in all I would expect the current setup to be slower than if you had simply added the PFC + camgears. Not to be a prick or anything, I hope you take the above as constructive and make some minor revisions to your efforts. Goodluck.

Having another read over the thread, the most that was said was pressure does not = flow. Which was made reference too quite well. The science involved in determining flow does include pressure however the relationship is not direct. This is the most that has been conveyed, which is a realistic explanation for those struggling with the concept to begin with. I would say it takes a while to master the concept in total. Remember blokes are normally interested in cars/books/beer or women and generally only two at a time. EVERYONE likes beer and women so your likely to find most on a CAR forum arent likely to like books that much **NB - Statement not relevant to Discopotato03 - it is guaranteed he likes atleast 3 of the above, women not too sure

Ever done any diving? The deeper you go the more pressure there is right? Yet one cubic meter of water is still one cubic meter of water... How about flying? Do you know the reason turbos were created? It is so that old school (non jet) plane engines would not stall when they hit high altitudes.. Why? Because there is lower pressure up that high.. Standard atmospheric pressure is 1 bar, yes you are breathing one bar of atmospheric pressure right now. The planes turbo kept the motor running at atmospheric pressure so it could breathe. Again, one meter squared 30,000ft in the sky is still one meter squared on the ground... Consider flow to be volume. As stated, it has no direct relationship with pressure. As wolverine said... Take a 600ml coke bottle... It holds 600ml of... Coke? Whatever, its capacity is 600ml end of story. Leave it open at atmo pressure, it will hold 600ml.. Put your mouth over it and blow pressure into it... How much will it hold once theres some form of above atmospheric pressure? 600ml right? Right. One more word to take into consideration. Density. Once you start reading into turbos WAY more, you will end up having to calculate the density of air that is being pushed (mass). Calculating air in GRAMS will really throw you off