discopotato03

Hi all , has anyone done any research into this E85 fuel blend or tried it for themselves . I tried a quick search into these "converter" gadgets that are supposed to tell engine managements systems what the ethanol to fuel ratio is so that they can adjust the timing tables to suit . I like the idea of the 105 octane but are there any issues to overcome . If it becomes a goer it certainly has the potential beat the eco nazis in the emissions stakes . Cheers A .

To continue . The way to tell (IMO) if the pressure balance is ok is to check turbine inlet pressure (backpressure) and compare it to inlet manifold pressure at wide open throttle - right across the rev range . If the hot side measures significantly higher than the cold side then there's potential to reduce the restriction and gain power with out any increase in boost pressure . It may well give you the chance to up the on load ignition advance because the TIP drop usually means a lower detonation threshold because of the reduced reversion factor . The GT3582R is a sort of hybrid in petrol engine form , similar diesel engine turbos using a version of that compressor ie GT3782 and GT4082 use really big housings and larger turbines as well . Somewhere down in the cave I have a part disassembled diesel GT3576 and its housings really are big . From memory its turbine housing looks like one from a TS GT40 in about 1.19 A/R and the big T4 flange . Just for the record it has a twin flat valve integral TS wastegate as well . The compressor housing IS GT40 family ie 0.65 A/R and the 56T 76mm GT37 compressor (same wheel as GT3076R) is dwafed by it . If I get energetic I'll post some pics of it . I don't think it is possible to run that 82mm 56T GT40 compressor to the limit in the housings Garrett supply for their "GT3582R" . I've just been having a sticky beak through the turbine maps (GT3582R / GT4088R) and it looks like the largest 1.06 A/R GT3582R's max flow rate is about what the GT4088R does in its second smallest 0.95 A/R form . Its worth remembering that the GT3582R's turbine is ~ 68mm 84T where the GT4088R's turbine is ~ 77mm 78T . The 88R's hot side is supposed to be a good mix of shaft power /response / flow . The 3582R I believe is the top end of the line for Garrets basic GT25 BB center section and the T3 flange footprint . Possibly seen as a healthy sized turbo with response for its potential airflow rate . The 88R is a large frame turbo meaning longer larger center section and a larger shaft diameter and bearing cartridge . The reason I mentioned that Turbonetic T435R (or whatever its called) is that Geoff raicer spoke favourably about it as possibly the best TS T4 flanged turbo out there with that kind of compressor wheel . Out of time , cheers A .

Just to clarify, you haven't made any thumb sucks about how much power you think the GT4088R would make or any explanation if or why you are suggesting alternatives to going that way - do you think its a bad idea?? I know the 1.06a/r flows a fair bit better than the .82a/r GT35 turbine housing but I'm thinking we could be running the risk of running out of compressor as well which would dampen things a bit. I'm a bit reluctant to state what kind of power potential I think certain combinations will make , not having been there I can't say for sure so why set people up for a fall ? Ive always been more concerned initially with the turbine side of turbochargers because I think that side has the most potential to limit the success of any build . Have to duck out for a couple of hours but back soon , A .

Fair enough , not sure if it's within the budget but if you could get hold of a 1.06 A/R turbine housing that would at least allow the existing turbo/manifold/gate system to be run to their limits . If you look at the turbine maps for the GT3582R the corrected flow figures jump up significantly over those for the 0.82 A/R housing size . The turbo would spin up a little later but the lower turbine inlet pressure may allow you to run more innitial ignition advance to pull up the lower end torque . Anyhow at least that GT4088R is an off the shelf item anyone can buy . I wouldn't like to guess where it would come onto boost on an RB26 , I always thought that external size wise the 4088R was vaguely similar to the old HKS TA45S but its light years ahead BB/wheel design/trim wise . If you could find the HKS low single cast manifold it may make for a reasonably straightforward conversion and not look TOO lethal to the cops . Granted not to many "EGR" valves are 50mm HKS but it looks less jailable than a largish turbo on a high mount manifold . Lets know what you think , cheers A .

Lithium the GT4088R would be my focus if it were me and I wanted super street power from an RB26 . IMO a 3L bottom end would be high on the to do list because you can generate the power at lower revs which is where street cars spend most of their time . I can't imagine anything worse than having to rev the guts out of a street car just to make the boost gauge flinch . Actually just had a thought , Geoff was playing with a different (modded or hybrid) "GT3582R" which I think may have been a custom Turbonetic effort . I think it used a different turbine to Garretts std one and the turbine housing was a propper T4 flanged divided inlet or twin scroll one . I remember he liked it because it got away from having to use the hard to find bored out "tractor" turbine housing which I think was TS "T3" flange . A lot of people don't understand that real T4 flanged TS housings are needed at high power outputs because you can't physically fit larg enough housing ports through the TS T3 flange size . In this instance the large passages are all about moving a high volume of gas with minimul restriction so you get the best communication (read least velocity loss) between the exhaust valves and the turbine housings nozzles . The pulse separation of the front and rear 3 pots and the dedicated turbine nozzle for each side means the lowest pressure in each half when the next cylinder blows down through the manifold and turbine housing . An expanding gas will lose less velocity energy when racing through a passage with low pressure in it . If the passage had higher prerssure (ie 6 into 1 single scroll manifold/turbo) then the pressure differential is less so that which reaches the turbine blades is moving slower and doesn't have as much oomph to spin the turbine . Reversion will be up in a single scroll system unless the turbine housing A/R is large and then you lose the velocity to drive the turbine/compressor up to speed at lowish engine revs . BTW what sort of torque and horsepower figures are you looking for and over what kind of rev range ? I don't want to raise old arguments but if it's 600 ish then you may be able to make life easier by using a pair of RB26 GT2530's on cleaned up std manifolds and a real good head and cams . You get most of the benefits of TS + external gate(s) and it all looks pretty std - to the constabulary . If you jacked the static CR up to the R33 GTS25T's 9:1 it would make the low end a bit crisper - particularly with those nice six throttle inlet systems . You couold also talk to Geoff about what he calls the "vertical flow" intercoolers which work well well if put together properly . Out of time , cheers A .

If you ask Geoff he will tell you that the GT4094R is not a brilliant thing , too much compressor for the turbine . The secret with using properly size matched TS turbos is keeping the turbine inlet pressure down . Geoff like a many others found that you have to give up this idea that small/med A/R ratio turbine housings are needed to get acceptable turbine response . On an effective TS manifold GT4088R's almost always work better on med to large A/R turbine housings meaning for them 0.94 or 1.06 ratio housings . High torque from a turbo engine comes from low pressure hot sides and its every bit as important as having a compressor with enough pumping capacity to make the power . People who poo hoo this TS stuff can think what they like . Your call , have a look at Geoffs USDM "R14" which has a full GTR drivline . I think from memmory he played for a while with TS RB26's which is why FR developed a proper TS manifold for RB26's . A .

Turbos native to or intended for twin RB26 std manifold apps have the unique or what Garrett call "compact" T25/28 or GT25/28 turbine housings . The dump flange pattern is different to generic GT25/GT28/SR20 . The compressor housings are designed to suit the RB26's air in/out and they have the two mounting eyes for RB26 turbos fluid plumbing fittings . With the amount of work involved in removing and replacing RB26 turbos I'd be wanting to be real sure that they were designed to work properly on that type of engine . Cheers A .

Hi , Doughboy here sold me an R33 GTR complete drop in fuel pump assembly and it replaces the R33 GTST's one entirely , literally one out one in . One thing you'll notice is the slightly elevated pump noise but it's not a biggie . I get the feeling that R33 GTRs used a different fuel pump voltage control unit so they may have dropped the voltage a bit lower than R33 GTST's one does at light loads . In my car the pump rises to full voltage at very small throttle openings . Cheers A .

With any performance car the two biggies are gross mass and engine capacity , I can't remember off hand what an R33GTR weighs but its north of 1400Kg and the engine capacity is ~ 2568cc's . RB26's were designed to rev and breath so they need a few revs on board and a bit of boost to get the heavy chassis going . An Impreza (assumes GC8 ?) is a fair amount smaller and lighter than the R33GTR and in std form most find boost before zilla does . People sometimes find the Impreza nippier and lets face it in tight bends they have less weight to make change direction brake and accelerate . On public roads it's possible to argue that the Impreza WRX can seem more entertaining because its possible to "have a go" without doing escape velocity , many GTR drivers seem to need to go "balls to the wall" to have a bit of fun . Some people like to say that the GTR's on demand AWD is a good thing but really the most honest opinion is that it feels like the most conventional (RWD sports car wise) 4wd , many others including the Impreza's are 2wd come AWD and this is not without its compromises . This is IMO take it or leave it . The Skyline GTR's were designed to be GT cars - Grand Tourers not drag strip slingshots and where they seem to shine is on open roads not traffic light suburbia . You may think these are fighting words but if you want something that was a bit of a classic in the Rally world you may consider a Evolution 6 Lancer because they have many goodies out of the box , there's lots of good bits available and there is a following here in Australia . A clean Evo 6 has some presence on the road and they really can be make exciting to drive at sub light speeds . Much as though they have a good looking spec sheet I will never own a GTR , very expensive and difficult to work on . I think that which made the R32GTR a good race platform brings it undone in road going form . Its a PITA to have to rev a road car to make it go but it had to be that way in this case because race cars aren't driven at pedestrian revs and Nissan wanted to win in competition . History went on to show the knuckle dragging pie eating beer swilling hoons that their 2WD V8's could be beaten . The truth is that a toned down 5 liter V8 is nearly always going to feel better at low revs than a turbo 2570cc engine . Its torque at lowish revs that feels strong , when you have to wait till 3500-4000 revs to get some torque from boost it leaves some feeling a bit cold . Possibly Nissan could have done worse than to offer a 3.5 to 4L alloy V8 in the GTR , 209Kw but with torque from lower revs . Your call with GTR's , if it were me and I liked them I'd buy it if I really liked it . There is nothing to prove with a GTR , the R32 succeeded in what it set out to do but its dated now and can be beaten by later thinking and technology . Just don't let one financially ruin you , cheers A .

I don't ever recall seeing a turbine with a plate on it though Garrett often have an inscription on their compressor wheels - many have the wheels part number on their back faces . Garrett do two grades of BB cage , the std one and the (I think) ceramic one for competition turbochargers . The only reason the comp spec ones get it is because it's expected they will see long periods at high engine loads so they need to be able to hack high temps for longer periods of time . A HKS T04Z uses the exact same cartridge as the generic one . The turbine and compressor housings are HKS specials and unique . My opinion only but if you are going to use the split T4 footprint and the larger frame cartridge I think the GT4088R is a better thing , much more modern wheels on both sides but exy compared to a generic Garrett T04Z . A .

SWR used to sell gaskets for FJ20's inc the half moon seals , have a stickey at their site . A .

My opinions only , take them or leave them . To me a GT3037 seems like a lot of turbo for a 2L six , some even think they are a bit ambitious on an RB25DET . If I had to run a 3037 GT Pro on an RB20 based engine I would opt for the smaller or 0.68 A/R turbine housing . Depending on how much power you realistically expect to make maybe a HKS GT-RS would be a better all rounder in a street car - definately cheaper and easier to fit . A turbo car doesn't have to break into wild wheelspin as soon as it comes on boost , I reckon that's more an issue of the transition of no boost to too much boost over a narrow engine rev band . If you can get it to make adequate boost initially and ramp up a bit with engine revs you may find the lack of traction less of a problem . A .

I'm out but my parting comment is that it would be madness to go grafting an R31 rear cross member and A arms into an R30 . The whole R31 platform is very different to an R30 and to think otherwise suggests that Nissan didn't know what they were doing in that era . Dimensionally R200 long nose diffs are the same with the only meaningful differences being the rear uni joints companion flange and the inner rear drive shaft joints interface . I am 90% sure the late short nose R200's carrier is dimensionally the same as early ones with the same offsets to suit the same ring/pinion ratios . Some early era R200's used smaller crown wheel bolts than the later ones but solving that issue if you have dissimilar holes/bolts either way is easy . An R200 is a mechano set diff , its a long or a short and I'll leave it at that . A . PS , sorry there were a few odd ball R200 viscous LSD's and those are best avoided .

I think this is going to fall on deaf ears but anyway . The rear calipers on R32/33 GTST are nothing famous , the pad area looks to be line ball and the caliper pistons look real small . Skylines tend to be front heavy cars and the more powerful 4WD versions (GTR) even more so . Front heavy cars need to have reasonably sized front brakes and not a lot of rear bias otherwise between front pork and weight transfer they lock the rears swap ends and kill people . I suspect some want the spoofy looking rear calipers for eye candy which is silly because those in the know won't be impressed anyway , and who's interested in impressing the wood ducks ? I think someone else mentioned that it would be far less work to graft the R31 backing plates with their internal drum park brake mechanism's to R30/DR30 semi trailing arms - makes more sense if its doable . I would also speak to Stu Wilkins of SWR because if they can get most combinations of R32/33/34 GTST/GTR bakes into early Z's and 16's legally , R30/31's should be straightforward . They have also found ways of getting R32GTST rear half shafts into Z's (240/260Z's) with R200 diff's and they say these (halfshafts + CV's) are relatively speaking ginormous compared to ANYTHING R30/31 . Your calls , cheers A .

From what I can see in the pics so don't hold me to this . To me it looks like a copy of a T04E compressor housing and a copy of a Garrett "5 bolt" integral (internal) gated Ford style exhaust housing . The turbine looks more like a 12 bladed Mitsubishi (TD05/06 ?) rather than anything Garrett I recall seeing . Center bearing is non water jacketed so not the best in a petrol fired EGT application . Even in our Pacific Paseo I'd reckon it would be difficult to manufacture and market a $300 turbocharger . A .

That sums it up pretty well , all I would add as I said (IMO) is that HKS's kits usually give a better all round result than necessarily a superior maximum power result . There are degrees of better , cheers A .

Yes , Garrett cartridge (centre section and wheels) and either a variation of Garrett housings or custom ones if there is nothing to suit model specific applications . Occasionally HKS spec Garrett cartridges use smaller trim versions of a specific Garrett compressor family where Garrett marketed turbos generally only offer the largest of 3 compressor trim options . A good example is the GT3076R/GT3037 cartridge , HKS have used 48/52/56T versions of that compressor where the Garrett marketed version only uses the 56T one . Another is the GT3071R/GT2835 series , HKS have used 48/52/56T versions , Garrett only market the 56T version . HKS are big on making turbine (exhaust) housings in variations that Garrett didn't , one good example is the T3 flanged GT28 BB housing to suit 2530's and GT-RS's on RB20/25 . Garrett only ever made GT28 BB housings with the smaller T28 mounting flange . HKS also sometimes use port shrouded compressor housings on turbos aimed at six cylinder engines to prevent compressor surge . Examples of this are RB20/25 specific GT2530 , GT-RS and the two Pro S turbos . You could say that Garrett market generic turbos where HKS market trim and housing optimized turbos of the same or similar family and this is why they often give better overall results . Basically someones ironed the bugs out so you can buy/bolt and get a given result . Cheers A .

The only purpose designed T3 flanged GT28 turbine housing for that NS111 turbine is the HKS one found on 2530's/2535's 2540's and GT-RS's intended for RB20 and 25 . The A/R ratio is 0.64 , Garretts 0.86 A/R turbine housing was only ever made with the smaller T2/25/28 flange . If you can find a GT2530 kit from an RB20/25 it would be easiest . A .

If it has no ID tag look at the backplate that the compressor housing is attached to . If there is a large steel circlip locking it in place (the comp housing) it most likely is a BB Garrett turbo . The RB turbine housing was not fitted by Garrett so someones played with it . If you have that GT3582R lose then compare the shape of the bearing housing particularly the oil drain flage pattern . Also the water line bosses and threads , the inverted flare oil restrictor down the oil feed hole . You really need that comp housing off and measure the wheel . A .

It looks to me like a GT30/T04S turbo - 7/14 blade comp wheel . GT wheels are 6/12 for GT3076R and GT3582R . A couple of things should give the game away . 1) Is it a ball bearing center ? 2) Does the outlet of the turbine housing measure ~ 55mm ? 3) I'd remove the compressor cover and measure the major diameter of the compressor wheel . T04S series are close to 76mm . Also BTW the 0.70 A/R T04S compressor housing is std on GT35R's - AKA GT3582R's . A .

I think this new system sounds like it has real potential , where it should get sales is from new installs . I have a PFC in my R33 and I'm in no hurry to remove it , the Subaru needs something better than it's ancient non tunable factory management so I'm all ears . For me the greatest stumbling block with programmable engine management was the ability to interface with the various CAS devices and being able to run off a Hotwire AFM . If someone local can put together a system that is a plug in for popular makes AND has a generic loom for conversion work the it should do well in the local market . I think its questionable to state that system X can make better power than system Y , its down to the tuning parameters and the persons ability to give the engine what it wants . The nice things are accurate idle and cold start functions and being able to handle rapid transients . Fast 02 probe systems and effective knock control are a must in this day and age - face it the factory does it so the aftermarket should be able to as well . I don't see them as a band aid for poor tuning but they could be enabled afterwards just to keep things workable with poor juice or some other issue . Will it be possible to pre purchase a copy of the software and instructions for this unit ? For me it would be a 4 injector 1/2/4 coil system , cheers A .

Hi , definitely more interested now that we know that it can run off a hotwire AFM . BTW can they run the same range of Nissan MAF's like the PFC can ie Z32 and Q45 . I am interested to know if they can use the later type pump cell oxygen probes . Lastly can they be set up as a stand alone and run a generic loom . I need a programmable MAF based unit to run a mid 80's Subaru Turbo 4 (RX-L series) , it uses an optical distributor/CAS unit so much like some Nissans of the era . Cheers A .

Nope , doubt that very much . No way manifold pressure sensing can achieve what mass flow sensing can , I guess people can't get their head around the fact that the appropriate MAF sensor is not restrictive . I had been just about to ask if the new box supports larger than std MAF sensors like PFC's do but no point is there . Lost me , cheers A .

I was sniffing around NASIOC before because they have a section virtually dedicated to "Meth Injection" . They have links to various suppliers in the US and some of the controller features look very interesting . One of them offers you a choice of two inputs ie a load voltage 0-5v signal from MAP/MAF and RPM and you set up a small table of something like 6x6 and the parameters are user definable . I'll have to get back with a brand (Coolamist ?) or a link if possible . The idea of using pleb juice and WMI may help us a little at the pump each week . There was talk of the poor yanks struggling with mouthwash 91-93 oct fuel at best and WMI getting them reliably over 100 effectively . If ways can be found to properly regulate WMI even in off boost running cheap juice may be able to be used and still give reasonable power potential . Or you can look at it the other way and possibly be able to run best mean torque timing almost everywhere . Anyhow between boost pressure/injector duty cycle/0-5v load sensor input lots of things are possible . Cheers A .

No , Dale if I was running a GT30 anything it would use a Pro s housing - meaning if I couldn't find one I wouldn't bother now . Also if I needed the 280 odd Kw then I'd run the 3037 Pro S too . It makes me wonder how a GT-RS (HKS housings on a Garrett GT2871R 52T) would go with the cropped GT30 turbine and a GT Pro turbine housing . It's also interesting that someone got 256 Kw from a GT-RS on an R33 . I'm stuffed if I know how you get 256 Kw's worth of exhaust flow through a 2871R but obviously its possible . I wonder what happens if you also port the head and use Poncams . I'd like to see the dyno graph of that GT-RS car mainly to see what its torque delivery is like . I know conditions on the day and other variances make a difference but just assuming for a tick that this car and one with a GT Pro turbo were tuned and the numbers come out at 256 and 280 - thats a whole 8.5% . Dale my goals have changed in the past couple of years since I've owned my R33 , it is the most modern and capable car I've had so far but it is big is heavy and not as agile or economic to run as smaller lighter cars . I am reluctant to sink serious money into a nearly 1400 Kg car because they need serious Hp to have serious squirt . Serious Hp costs money to develop and to feed with garbage grade fuel costing up to $1.50 a liter . If you use 98 oct juice and buy it at the right time with a shopper docket it may cost this or a little more . When its $2+ L and costing $120+ to drive 400-450 K's it's going to start to hurt . Cheers A .