GTScotT

The core and turbine housing of GT3076R and GT3582R are identical in outer footprint. Even your intake pipe will be fine, and a careful clock on the compressor housing with a new silicon hose will make that fit too. Done.

The difference between a 3076 .63 and a 3582 .82 will be massive, that is a definite.. From memory there was a source somewhere which showed some HTA back to backs on an Audi (IIRC?), which may even be in this thread if you have a good read... On WOT pulls the HTA3582 was not far off the garden variety 3076. What you need to consider before taking those results as gospel are as follows: - WOT pulls on the dyno are not a true indication of what will be felt when commuting with the car. While full boost might be at a similar place, the 35R will definitely be MUCH doughier in the traffic.. Regardless of how stellar the HTA technology is, as a 35R rear wheel is simply a lot more turbine. - Your car currently sports a .63 turbine housing, which is arguably undersized for your application. As a result your setup would likely feel a little more enthusiastically potent than what a comparable .82 setup would feel, and so just going to a .82 will already take away some of that poke. Going up in turbo size will do more again. It sounds like the car is reasonably well set up but mostly does a lot of commuting, so I am a little gun shy to say "yeah sure, whack a HTA3582, it will be awesome". As much as I do believe it will rock socks, I think the majority of the time you are commuting you will miss the current setup. On the street you probably wont notice the jump in power nearly as much as you will notice the jump in lag.. This is honesty coming through. If an increase in power is sought there is an alternative you may want to consider. Hypergear has a variable geometry housing he is playing with at the moment that could be adapted to most turbos. Essentially when not on target boost the housing will be small (around .50ar) and when target boost is achieved it will open to be the full size (.82). You could probably use one of these housings with the existing 3076 to "have it both ways" as you noted, or you could still pursue the HTA3582 path and potentially have something stellar. I'm sure that will give you something to think about. Have a good read of this thread and also the Hypergear thread, page 1 will have an index of what page topics start on. Good luck.

While I do respect 34GeeTeeTee's efforts (and think the results were great) personally I wouldn't change from a normal 3076 to a 3076HTA (if I already had a 3076R)... I am having trouble guessing what manifold and gate combo you are running.. Based on the power I would say external gate but based on the boost drop maybe internal gate? Please tell us what manifold and how it is gated. I think the most logical improvement would be to go for a .82 housing. If you haven't already got a good manifold and gate I would recommend you do that also. The added flow and improved boost control should net you close to an additional 30kw (350rwkw should be achievable) and keep costs to a minimum. The new manifold and gate will still be workable for the 30 if you go there. If you do then move to the dirty 30 scene you will still have a reasonable turbo to have a super responsive 350kw... But if you decide to go HTA3582 from now, and never do end up going dirty 30, you have just short changed yourself a fair amount of response for not much extra power (unless you want to risk the stock bottom end?). If you do end up going 30, a 3076R .82 is an easy turbo to sell First things first, make sure you have good manifold and gate... Then consider if you want/need a turbo upgrade or if a larger housing will do the job.

lol that I cannot help with. I would have thought any old hose will do?

LOL What a lazy prick Nissan 11810-AA500 - that's the valve. Dunno if you actually mean the HOSE.

Unless a leaking PCV could be causing a boost leak and pushing oil out the failed cam covers Buy a new PCV to be sure, to be sure.

He's right, the graph shown is for a G3, but the intake leak might still be present and causing the 5ish psi boost drop. Fixing it might get him another 10-15kw from threshold to redline, definitely worth investigating.

Sorry to hear mate, Buy some gaskets and change anything suspect while your on the job

Did you take off the top plenum to do the injectors?? If so, did you replace the gasket and did you clean the surfaces extremely well? If not, I'd say you should check there for leaks LOL Mick_o had one of those leaks and it was a bitch to spot. Car wouldnt exceed 280kw.. Found the leak by running water over the intake manifold while it was doing 4th gear pulls on the dyno. Fixed gasket and WHAM 335rwkw.

Intake leak could explain it, too. If its leaking from somewhere after the turbo you could see the boost drop you are and then work the turbo harder to keep up the boost, pushing the compressor out of efficiency and causing the ping. Sounds like you are almost there, you just need to go over the setup with a fine tooth comb and iron out any small bugs.

342whp = 256rwkw That's good power for a G2.5 Not a great deal left in it on 98. Done well.

Well, doesn't look like swap will go ahead at this stage. Just ordered this: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/271242857966?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649 I'll see how well it works and if the 3076R is still choking this setup. If its still too small we can discuss a swap, I will be getting this tuned in the next few weeks. Need to sort out a dud C4 gearbox first. Will get to solve everyone's curiosity on these housings also. Cross your fingers lads.

Ah yeah true. I'm keen for another visit to the dyno. Need to get my bugs fixed and I hope he's willing to squeeze 10/10s out of it now

I may be selling a used 3076R 56T .63 AR T3 Vband turbo complete. Turbo is near new in terms of KM's or working hours. PM me an offer if this is what you are looking for. I am looking to go larger, 35R ish. I may be looking to swap.

I'm not sure the G2 is that much more responsive Stao.. On the day I picked up my car it felt a lot laggier than it does now. The motor has really loosened up since the tune day... Attached is my graph which I have posted before. You will see that the G2 is at full boost between the 3750 and 4000 markers, meaning at best it would be 200rpm more responsive than my SS1PU. Remember also the conditions under which my car was tuned, and that it is only running pump 98.

Lith the compressor he mentioned is his SS1.5 item which is 64mm od My SS1PU is 71mm od comp (similar in physical size to a 2871).

I'm just putting things into simple terms. The ARP's are not torque to yield like the stock bolts are, so the easiest way for me to have described WHY they take more torque to the OP was to say that they stretch less. While that may or may not be entirely accurate it is a reasonable way of thinking of it. ARP themselves describe stretch yield to be 5 thou as a rule of thumb, so if considering that as a base the ARPs must stretch less at a given torque, to take more torque than the stock torque to yield bolts and not exceed 5 thou. Clearly I am not taking the metalurgy of the bolt or its elasticity into consideration as it is hardly important in answering OPs concerns.. The point is that the specs for torquing them are higher than stock and OP should not be concerned. Yes I do mean 3 increments of 47nm. So in the case of using a MLS HG I would sit the head onto the block and use the factory torque down order, 47, then 94, then 142nm. Double check the last increment and make sure you are pulling the tool towards you, slow. Do not push the tool away when torquing. Steady your body and use the motor and your strong arm to pull towards.

do ma con cac forged piston head gasket is bede

A 90T 60mm GT30 turbine is a reasonable comparison.

I followed ARP specs on 2 motors I have used them on, but did tighten then slack off process for OEM gasket. No torque plate hone on either motor, one with MLS HG other with OEM crush type. Both motors since faultless. I prefer the ARP method as the OEM method is intended for two things: to crush the gasket and then torque, and to allow bolts to stretch. The ARP studs stretch far less and are reusable, so the torque settings are not relevant and 3 steps is better for even torque when not expecting bolts to stretch. If you are using an MLS gasket the tighten then slack off process is also redundant as you don't need to crush the gasket before going for final torque. In the case of using an OEM gasket go to 30/65/100nm, then loosen off and go 3 increments of 47nm. I wouldn't be afraid to go 3 increments of 50nm (50/100/150) to allow for tool slack. If using an MLS probably stick to 4 increments of 47nm if you have good tools.

Why not just an electric pump at all times? Have something to monitor the fact its actually pumping at all times and benefit from full control.

f**k you Vic guys I wanna come to the tea party too, damn it.

That is fairly true.. Stao himself has said the SS2 is intended as a low shaft speed turbo. Maybe velocity is too high through the head now, and the turbo is being over spun. Thus giving the effect there is a restriction..

In the 312 result he noted it as being a prototype, which I am sure was the move to the full blade wheel. However, the older SS2 was also 300kw capable. Time for Stao to chime in and clarify now lol

I am fairly sure the 312kw item is the new version. Old version is the high/low blade 71mm compressor, like what can be found in my SS1PU. Fairly high tip height with familiar looking blade curvature. New version Stao played with the 'full blade' design and found it to work quite well. Full blade SS2 is 74mm.