discopotato03

Supposed to have 6 outputs my tuner tells me . I've been doing more road tuning with mine for better round town consumption , I'm getting closer to what I think is the right mixture control on transients but consumption is hard to improve . It seems mixtures higher than 0.93 L (E70) are a waste of time and I am trying to get the transients more like 0.88 rising to 0.93 and not spiking rich when lifting off . I'm no gun tuner but I think having the AFR target table right and seeing how much correction the system uses and minimising this on the load table is the way to go . Also playing with the temp correction helps because traffic driving makes for wide variations in IATs . One place that is proving hard to get right is around 2200 revs going into boost in high gears , as the engine loads up the AFR climbs rather than falls and trying to add fuel in the load table doesn't seem to work . Next try is to play with timing in this area to get mixtures to go richer rather than leaner . Further up the rev range this isn't a problem . It would be interesting to try lower ethanol ratios but since you can't buy anything between E10 and E70 it's a bit pointless . A .

The 52 trim will happen just have do a few more pressing things like brakes first . Depending on how the 3076R goes a 7163 may follow though that won't be any time soon . I'll wait to see what people think of these 7163s though I have no reason to doubt Geoff when he says they are a great thing . I've mainly been looking for pics of the B1 frame turbos next to GT3076Rs to get an idea how they'd go on an RB25 with the std manifold . One issue may be the recirc housing on the comp cover because its right about where a GT3076R is close to the std exhaust manifold . I think I need to hang out for a 20mm T3 spacer when the GT30 goes on because a bit more manifold clearance can't hurt . I also noticed that the water line fittings are same or similar threads to the Garrett BB ones so easy if you already have braided lines . A .

Another link to an article on EFRs . In the text below the compressor map it mentions the 0.85 AR open housing as T3 flanged . http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArticles/ID/1750/PageID/2474/BorgWarner-EFR-Turbo-Feature-Set.aspx This would be the most straightforward way to bolt a B1 frame EFR like a 7163 onto a single turbo RB six . I'd like to think that a 7163 with this housing would be more than a match for a GT3076R 0.82 IW turbo on an RB25 . Maybe not as responsive as a TS T4 0.80 housing but the plus is that if the open housing maxes the turbine flow then maybe a beefier top end . A .

Here is a link to a thread that compares an EFR 6758 to a "GT30" which from the pics looks like a GT3071R with a drilled and slotted comp cover . http://www.skoda-club.org.ua/forum/showthread.php?tid=53009 When I remember how to translate it it may be an interesting read . A .

Just to catch me up the 0.85 AR open housing for the 7163 is T3 flanged ? A .

I was sniffing around for B1 frame dimensions and came across this thread with pics comparing an EFR 6758 with a Garrett GTX3071R . I'm trying to get an idea of how a 7163 compares to a GT3076R packaging wise . EFR B1 frame turbos are all the same size externally , except turbine housings , as is the GT3076R/GTX3071R . Note the BW EFR is a lot longer in the cartridge as well as the IW turbine housing . That 3071 is using a Tial ext gate housing . http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5163852-EFR-Anatomy A .

I think ethanol changes "effective" octane because you spray more in compared to petrol and get a bit more evaporative charge air cooling . In the States they have in some places "blender" pumps at servos so the user choses ratios like say E10/30/50/85 . These pumps blend ethanol and low octane ULP from separate in ground tanks and gives you the chance to experiment with percentages . Unfortunately E70/85 doesn't have a huge following here and since the local manufacturers aren't supporting it who knows what the future holds for pump E70/85 . All the masses care about is how cheaply they can run their car and they know these days engines designed to burn ULP don't do well on E10 , if 10 is bad more must be worse . And of course ethanol "burns your seals out" , short of catching fire I don't know how that happens . IMO maximum power tuning (highest possible state of tune) changes things because the highest cylinder temperatures and pressures are what demands the most effective octane . It is possible to have higher octane than you need to supress detonation and then the expense and effort isn't always worth it . Anyway my point is without a petrol content octane sensor I don't know how you tune for petrols variable octane . In fact I'm surprised manufacturers haven't looked at this because relying totally on nock and oxygen sensors seems a hard way to go about effective engine management . A .

I reckon that if tuners like reliable engines the only way you'll ever get a good flex tune is blending low octane ULP with ethanol . Hard to imagine Caltex and United using 98 PULP in their E70/E85 pump fuels . If a tuner tunes for flexible blends where the ULP is 98 what happens when some mug comes along and throws in some amount of 91 E10 or 95 ULP ? The ethanol sensor can't tell the computer what the octane rating of the petrol content is and neither can an oxygen sensor . The AFRs can be perfect but if the timing maps are based on blended 98 ULP the engine can very easily nock with lower octane petrols in the blends . I hear people say often enough that good tuners put all kinds of protections in their settings and if they want to be SURE you won't kill it they have to make allowances for petrol content octane . Sure very high ethanol content blends wouldn't make a significant difference but that's because the petrol content is so low . I can't see anyone here doing this but if I wanted an effective flex tune I'd start with 91ULP and build it up to E85 . That way you can put anything at the pump that isn't diesel in your car and it won't go bang if tuned properly . If you flog the piss bags out of your car everywhere gas up with E85 at United . If you drive Sydney Melbourne tomorrow do say an E40 blend and get good mileage along the way . I hardly think an RB would ping if tuned properly on E40/91 sitting on 110 down the Hume . The difference tuning this way is that the tuner doesn't have to put protections in trying to fool proof the users gassing up habits . If your tuner trusts you they may use 95 as the base ULP but it could go bad if someone put 91 or E10 in and leaned on it . A .

I think there's lots of oxygen in the old can't beat cubic inches argument though forced induction changes the playing field significantly . I'd say that saying came from the states in decades gone by where fuel was cheap and big V8s were everywhere . My take is that more cubes makes everything easier because you need less revs to achieve the same thing and the increase in low rev part throttle torque is often directly proportional to the capacity increase . We know full well why Nissan went with 2568cc and it had nothing to do with making a GTR a nice all round road car . I don't know for sure but I think the RB25 and 26 blocks are externally the same dimensions as the RB20 that they'd had for a while before the GTR saw the light of day . I don't think either 25 or 26 are exactly ideal bottom ends and the blocks could have been taller and their rods longer . From this perspective the RB30 is better because the bore stroke and rod stroke ratios are better , the 26 combination is the least desirable IMO and stroking their std height block makes the situation worse again . This is not to say those combinations don't work its just that they're not exactly ideal . Look at the apps RB30s went into and its hard to deny they wanted more torque in a lower state of tune - read cheaper to manufacture and sell single cam types . I think Japan and NZ had SOHC RB20s and we got SOHC 30s in R31s/VLs and ST Patrols . VLTS had 30ETs in a really soft state of tune and getting the 155 odd crank wasps up to 209 would have been a walk in the park with a half decent IC CR increase and something a bit better than a small series Garrett T3 . A 3L factory R32 GTR making the same 209 kw should have had more linear power delivery than 2568cc versions and I think would have pleased more people who bought them . Not everybody gets off on reach for the sky rev counters and boost gauges and a road car that "feels" peaky takes more effort to drive if you want it to pull well everywhere . Gearboxes , they are a problem in road cars given a big bootfull of revs because strong enough shafts gears and syncro hubs have a lot of inertia and convincing everything to slow down at change time can be difficult . I knew a feller that tried dragging a VLT with an RB26 and the std wide ratio VLT box and it would never change gears properly . If you don't want to go to dog boxes closer ratios and more torque at less revs is an advantage . Anyway I agree with Lithium in that reducing the state of tune (boost) is the way to torque limit a larger engine , this doesn't alter the RB30s ability to out muscle an RB26 at 1-3000 revs and pull higher gears down there . Ultimately high revs is where wear and tear are so if you can in theory make the same power at less revs then the engine should have a longer useful life between rebuilds if serviced properly and not abused . Better fuel consumption from not having to boot it everywhere is a bonus . Some of you may laugh at fuel consumption woes but try driving that hotted up GTR everywhere and living with the fuel bills . I think the consumption killer is having to dump extra fuel in every time the engine goes into boost , if it made adequate part throttle torque and the turbos were sized not to spool every time you breathed on the go pedal it's easier to get acceptable consumption . Anyhow blame the Grp A regs and the weight class Nissan wanted to race the GTR in . A .

Cheap dirty 30 because as far as the authorities are concerned it has a 30 from the factory . Anyone who's anyone would be less concerned about a twin cam VL than an RB30 in a Skyline 33 or 34 . Build it up the std cheap way (rods/NA pistons) and with a Neo turbo head , smaller chambers , the CR should be manageable . More part throttle torque in a 30 than a 25 and being 20% larger is in theory doing everything the 25 does at 7000 from under 6 . VLs have tall gearing Lastly you lose the dinosaur distributor / cap / leads with twin cam heads . A .

Here it is about half way down . http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/forum/f424/game-changer-efr-7163-a-159047/ Note the first post where the OP reckons according to Garrett the Indy EFRs don't use the lightweight turbines ? I'm not sure if a 7064 tops out higher than a final spec 7163 , bigger housings ? Whatever 60 lb/600 Hp potential is right up there for the frame size . Honeywell must be wondering what to do when this turbo arrives in volume , the OE market would be watching too . A .

This is a link to a Ford F150 site and Geoff pops up because of the turbo kit Full Race has been developing for the 6000 lb 3.5 litre V6 powered truck . http://www.f150forum.com/f70/definitive-full-race-motorsports-eco-boost-thread-208585/index8/ Page 8 has a pic of BWs mixed flow turbine unique to their EFR 7163 turbocharger . Its interesting to see a different perspective to forced induction particularly regarding the 7163 . Earlier I found a thread on the Mazdaspeed site that had the comp map of the 7163 , interesting if you haven't seen it , very wide so a wide ranging unit overall . I'll see if I can find the link , cheers A .

From people who have made bell mouthed dumps for the GT30 IW outlet what size tube is needed to form the outlet tube welded to the turbos flange plate ? I did look at XR6T dumps but they are on the opposite side of the engine with the gates outlet under the main one rather than above it like it is low mounted on an RB . Here is a link to Best Mufflers and a few pics of what they do for XR6Ts . http://www.bestmufflers.com/Information/Custom%20Systems/custom_exhaust_system_ford_xr6_6cyl_Dyno_Results.htm Cheers Adrian .

Actually that compressor housing is the old truck style T04B one and the only GT30 turbo I know of that uses a similar kind of thing is the GTX3067R - only its an updated port shrouded one . I think it's debatable that you'd reliably get any single GT28 turbine fitted turbo to 300 RWKW - without an external gate anyway . I'd say the whole reason Garrett stuck a GT30IW hotside on the 3067R was to run the X67 compressor out without choking the exhaust side . BTW on their site they rate the 2867R at 480 Hp and the 3067R at 500 Hp . Strangely enough they quote the full turbine size GT3071R as 460 Hp and the cropped one as 480 . Something screwy about those 3071Rs but interesting that they quote the cropped one as the same power as the GTX3067R , note this is the same cartridge used in the HKS GT2835 Pro S turbo . A .

I've searched heaps for info/results on GTX2867Rs and GTX3067Rs and this is what some of the 2L four banger people said . Read into it what you like ... They reckon they proved ages ago that the 0.64 AR turbine housing was always the go with GT28XXR turbos and using the optional 0.86 AR one was a backwards step . They reckoned that lag increased with the larger turbine housing and what they gained at the top was trivial . It sounded to me like the larger housing reduced the gas speed through the turbine which then didn't turn the compressor fast enough to make boost when they wanted it . Now obviously the GTX3067R is a bitzer , and yes if you look at the GT28 0.86 AR and the GT30 0.63 AR turbine maps the flow lines are sort of similar . To me its logical that if you want a GT30 turbine to spin up like a GT28 one then you probably want to be using a similar AR housing to the GT28 turbine using that same compressor end . I think most/all GTX3067Rs advertised have the 0.63 housing on them and that's obviously no accident . You could look around to see if anyone's selling cheaply a 63 or an 82 housing and try that if you buy a 3067R . A .

The Garrett turbos on the Cosworth Sierras and the sporting evolutions - RS500s were not exactly brilliant things . A lot of them failed and were returned unopened to Garrett . It's highly probable that the ones on the best racers were a bit more "standard" than most and I know for a fact that many were fiddled yet kept standard dimensions on the bits the scrutineers could measure . Engineering over design was what made the 500s work as well as they did and if you remember what they were racing against pre GTR its not surprising they had the headlines for a short time . Better off playing with a true GT30 turbine housing of some kind IMO . A .

I think it depends on which GT30 you look at because the standout seemed to be the GT3071R . The GT2871Rs from Garrett ran plain T04B compressor housings and the 3071R a plain 0.50 AR T04E housing . Obviously HKS found that surge was an issue and used their own non Garrett port shrouded comp housing . They also specifically used the 52 trim version of the 71mm GT compressor in the GTRS . Garretts GT3076R of today is literally a HKS spec "GT3037S" without the bell mouthed insert and the HKS turbine housing . Available in 52 and 56 compressor trims . HKSs version of the GT3071R , called GT2835 Pro S , used non Garrett turbine and compressor housings and the cropped versions of the GT30 turbine . There is nothing magical in what HKS did , it was about dialling in housings and wheel sizes and trims . If Garrett didn't have suitable housings they had their own made up . I don't recall anyone saying they had wastegating issues with HKS spec Garrett turbos used in the right applications . A .

I'm only theorising but my gut feeling is that the GTX3067R would probably need the Garrett GT30 0.63 turbine housing to spin it fast enough to get boost at reasonable engine revs . From what I researched , the fella at GCG agreed .. More later been chased away by missus , cheers A .

I prefer a single 20mm T3 spacer if anyone knows of any in Sydney , GCG Sonic and Liverpool can't supply ATM . The studs I have are 41mm so around 20 the limit allowing for the turbo flange and nuts . Does anyone have a 20mm T3 spacer they can sell me , prefer one 20 to two 10s . Timeline probably a week after I have all the bits . A .

Most people seem to think that GTRSs are a 250+ KW PULP turbo and I think the E70 allows me to keep the boost and timing up which made 271 at the rollers . To make more and have the engine a bit more free spinning means more turbine and housing so GT30 hot side is the way to do it . Lith we know that the GT37 compressors are good but later designs are creeping ahead . The 52T GT37 wheel in theory pumps right about what I want which is in between what the available GTX ones do . Arguably a HTA GT30 may do better all round but I own this turbo so why not use it . When tuned and I get to fiddle with the low load numbers I can draw my line in the sand and know if its just right - for me . Will post up as it happens , cheers A .

Yeah looking at them the GT30 hot side is considerably larger . I wouldn't have thought the 52T cold side would make a huge difference spool wise over a 56T but time will tell the difference between it and the GTRS . Today I bought the manifold and dump studs/nuts and most of the gaskets and copper washers . GCG doesn't have the 20mm spacer available ATM though they stock their GT30IW dump pipe . Its separate dump tube could be larger and formed to a more useful shape at the turbo outlet flange . I looked at pics of XR6T dump pipes and lots of those are made the same way . A .

T3 spacers are available in 10 13 16 and 20mm thicknesses , 20 is what I'll try to make sure a T04S housing clears if I ever had to use one ie HTA76 etc . Sonic or GCG seem to have everything except a bell mouthed GT30IW dump pipe so that will have to be made up to suit . I know people sometimes go big in the tube size but I reckon 3" should be good enough for 300-330 wheel wasps . I'm going to use the existing coolant and oil fittings from the GTRS kit . I'm keen to see how the mid trim GT30R goes , once you make the jump to T3 flanged GT30 based turbos it opens up all sorts of possibilities you don't get with GT28 based ones . This is not to say that GTRSs are useless on RB25s and they are a very easy upgrade on a standard engine/car . Not the tool of choice if you want to double the engines output but lots better than the standard ceramic Hitachi turbo . Anyway someone here , checkbuzz I think , claims his 0.82 52T GT3076R boosts pretty much like his GTRS did but made more power everywhere . That was on an unopened 33 25 from memory and burning PULP . If Scotty can tune up maybe 320 and have it drive as well or better than it does now I'll be real happy . Cheers A .

Seems I can't buy off the shelf a dump/front for my R33 . The only dump I know of for the IW GT30 housing is GCGs one though I prefer a bell mouth one . What results have people had with the GCG dump ? Cheers A .

Have a look at the compressor in the first pic in that link , doesn't look like a 6/6 bladed GT wheel to me . I can't see what the centre section looks like either . Debatable if the 1.06 turbine housing would be lazy on an RB25 . A .

I'm fitting the same GT3076R 52T 0.82 AR as checkbuzz but I have a bit of porting 256s and run E70 . It will be interesting to see what the 52T can crank out in the 82 housing with about 17-18 pounds of boost . I'm guessing something like what Mafia got with his 56T 0.63 AR version which may have been ~ 320 wheel wasps . A .