discopotato03

Yes the chambers would be interesting to compare . Out of interest what does a factory standard R34GTt feel like to drive compared to a standard S2 R33GTS25T ? Also for those that have tuned engine management systems on both versions is the R34 type any more or less detonation prone than the R33 type ? I'm curious to know so that others can seek any advantages going if they chose to rebuild their RB25 engines . If for example someone had access to both heads and was replacing std pistons anyway does the Neo offer anything worthwhile over the late R33 version . Cheers A .

The other thread was here http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/topic/370688-what-differences-internally-r33r34det-short-blocks/page__p__5908942__hl__r34+rb25+differences__fromsearch__1#entry5908942 Still looking for the chamber pics one . A .

The trouble is that GT3582Rs are a factory bastard as sold mainly because they don't have the right housings for their wheels . The only "real" GT35 BB turbo is the OE large frame one Garrett did for Hino and Isuzu and they appear to use twin inlet T4 International flanged GT40 turbine housings . Anyway I agree that a GT35 turbo regardless is getting a little big for an RB25 , airflow wise from their comp maps they are supposed to be good for 600+ Hp so for a 25 to use it properly thats 240 hp/litre . The thing to realise is that twin scrolled systems were designed to allow engines to make more torque at low revs . I'd lose the idea that twin scrolling allows you to use much larger turbochargers than standard and not introduce any more "turbine lag" . If you look to the few manufacturers that used twin scroll systems on OE performance petrol engines ie Mazda Mitsubishi/Subaru/Toyota note they didn't fit huge turbos or turbine housings . Virtually all of these big twin scroll turbine housings are intended for BIG slow revving diesel engines and the reason for their size is the huge capacity of these detonating mountains of torque . Geoff Raicer (Full Race Geoff) used to say that the twin scroll GT32 T3 flanged (Euro T4 flanged actually) turbine housing worked reasonably well up to nearly 500 Hp and some Stateside found their way onto GT3071R and GT3076R turbos with a little machine work . At least the Americans try , at times , to emphasise torque and they realise its a factor of better engine scavanging thats making it not just the turbo trying to wake up to a degree a little earlier . I know you Nissan people don't really like to hear me speak of Evo stuff but its hard to argue that they didn't make fairly impressive torque from a production two litre four cylinder . They never used anything larger than a TD05H turbine and a 10.5cm turbine housing in std form on the 4G engine anyway . In fact the first twin scroll one (E4) used a 9cm housing and the cooking model 7 and 8 had 9.8cm turbine housings std . Anyway on with the debate . A .

Two ways to measure . 1) This needs some care . Take a set of inside calipers and adjust the feet out to the diameter of the compressor housings snout - the parallel section between where the blades are . Don't damage the blades . Then measure this distance , across the calipers feet with a vernier caliper . Actually don't even need the vernier because the measured diameter will be the same if the turbos are the same . 2) Remove the compressor housings and measure/compare . If you know a bit of the background about Garrett GT BB turbos and specifically RB26 spec ones you can just about go through a process of elimination . First look at and count the turbine blades which should be either 9 or 11 . Measure the exducer diameter with inside calipers as mentioned above . The 11 bladed turbine is unique meaning no trim variations . AFAIK only RB26 HKS2510s used this turbine though some have suggested R34 BB turbos have them , did they have ceramic turbines like OE bush GTR turbos ? If the turbines are 9 bladed they come in two trims ie 62 and 76 , the big trim ones were used in 2530s and the Garrett marketed version plus GTR spec GTRS/AKA GT2871Rs . The smaller trim one comes in the RB26 spec GTSS/GT2859R/707160-9 and the Garrett marketed version . I don't think you'd miss differences comparing two turbines or their compressor wheels . If everything looks the same ie blade style/count/profile measure the dimensions of the housings where they live and if everything comes up the same its looks waddles quacks duck situation mostly . If you had the housings off you could CAREFULLY trial fit them to the opposite numbers cartridge and if they are right all the clearances will be the same . A .

Yes thats what I was going to say the R34 Neo chambers to compare with the R33 ones . Too late for me now because I have a ported R33 head on my R33 engine but if I had my time over I would have looked for a Neo head to modify . Usually manufacturers don't change things like pistons and head details for the same engine without good reasons because its expensive . From memory in the late 90s emissions and fuel consumption were , and still are , big issues and it would be interesting to know exactly what Nissan gained from the last revision of the RB25DET - over the R33 version . From memory Nissan claimed 206Kw for the Neo where I think the later R33 ones were 184kw ? Correct me if I'm wrong but the notable changes were turbine housing/injectors/cams+actuator/intercooler and probably lower load PS pumps etc externally . The things you can't see are the chambers and pistons and I suspect that Nissan was working hard to keep the performance of these engines acceptable with lean AFRs for light load and cold start . It would have been an opportunity to rejig water cooling jackets around the hot sides of the chambers and possibly exhaust ports as well . A REAL interesting thing to know is if the tuners here have noticed Neo engines being less detonation prone than the R33 one allowing a bit more ignition advance which pays off in many cases . Yeah I like those rods too , reminds me of the later intercooled FJ turbo ones but shorter and not as wide across the big ends . A .

I would like to see someone recreate the Trust Turnflow intercooler because there is a demand for them and I think they were discontinued some time back . In my mind these are the best solution for those that don't want the pipe work going through the inner guard and back over the top of the engine to its inlet pipe . It leaves the engine bay looking totally standard so less for the whallopers to bite you over . Also if anyone peers in through the front at the tubes all they do see is vertical ones which could be easily mistaken for radiator or AC condenser tubes especially if its black . As for the vertical tubes , I don't believe it matters to cooling (with the same external area) if the tubes are vertical or horizontal . What would make a HUGE difference is the number of flow paths with vertical tubes because there are so many more of them than you can fit in a horizontal flow core . It stands to reason that the more tubes you have the less flow restriction there is so ultimately the vertical tube core will flow more all else being equal . The other thing is that we NEED the airspeed through the tubes to be low to give the air molecules more time to reject the heat given in the pumping process . If you don't think this is the case then ask heat exchanger manufacturers why they fill the tubes with "turbulators" and why more thin tubes , to a degree , tend to work better that fewer deeper section ones . The thinner tubes and turbulators force the air/water/etc to slow down and tumble which reduces boundary layer flow . You get better heat rejection AND flow by having more tubes rather than longer tubes - quote Corky Bell . By comparison a horizontal tube IC of the same dimensions has fewer longer tubes and that long tube to return the air back to the standard nearside plumbing . On the Trust style "Turnflow" the bottom collector tank replaces the return pipe so its all good . If I was going to make intercolers for R32/33/34 I'd do the Turnflow style and like trust use two suitably sized cores side by side with custom tanks . If suitable core were available it would be quite easy to fabricate and depending on how many tubes you had it may even be possible to have the core a little thinner minimising the reo bar trimming - which most would prefer not to do if possible . A .

Always the but , you could argue the surface area difference with one split pulse manifold vs two compact short ones as well . A .

I'm looking for a Trust vertical tube intercooler kit to suit an S2 R33 GTS25T . These have the inlet and outlet on the pass side and a couple of pipes to link up to the std plumbing in the engine bay . In Sydney , cheers Adrian .

I'm going to see if I can find a Trust Turn flow intercooler first because I like the idea of its tanks reducing the plumbing length . My take on intercoolers is that more tubes rather than longer tubes is the way to make it work properly all else being equal . Also vertical tubes are a bit more stealthy that your average front mount intercooler , they look more radiator or condenser like to your averade joe - or weaner . Searches show these kits or cores have been sold here at SAu as recently as a month ago so they are around . Cheers A .

I've been searching in here and this Trust turn flow kit looks good but probably hard to find 2nd hand nowdays . http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/topic/348655-r34-gtt-front-mount-intercooler-installation/ The Blitz I'll keep in mind but I'll look around at whats going "pre loved" first . Edit : I really do like the look of the vertical flow Trust "Turn Flow" intercooler kits for R33/R34 . If anyone knows of a complete kit up for grabs please let me know . Cheers , A .

So this is a Japanese product that fits properly without cutting anything ? All goes in without much fuss ? Do you have pics of it in and is it possible to rough it up and blow some semi gloss black over it ? Cheers A . Do not want to cut anything up .

Yes I've been searching and most people say the same thing , poor internal flow . Maybe ok for stdish RB20 but thats about it . The 2JZGTE powered ones I think used a really thick side mount but debatable if it would fit and work in an R33 . Does anyone know if anything is available that has the inlet and outlet at the same end like the Supra ones that would fit in the nose of an R33 ? I'm a bit reluctant to use a cheap return flow front mount but I don't think the aftermarket caters for much that doesn't need cutting to fit and is well made . A .

Yes this isn't going to leaned on real hard or for any lengths of time , just a road car with good usable power . A .

The time has come to get the GTRS into my GTS25T and I don't think the R34 GTt SMIC is going to cut it soo I need something a bit better . Last trip to SKs I noticed a black Toyota looking IC on a shelf with its barb fittings on the same end so I asked the question and its looking for a new home . At this point I should add that I'm not doing great feats of re-engineering with this S2 Coupe so any updates now will be adequate and thats all meaning no overkill . I'm looking for an OE type intercooler that needs minimul work to fit , no cutting , and using as much of the factory plumbing as possible . I want the engine bay to look as std as possible and to date it does bar an Apexi boost control valve and Z32 wiring at the AFM . Anyway I suspect this intercooler is either from a 7MGTE powered MA70 Supra or possibly , or hopefully , from a slightly later JZA70 one . Modified with straight inlet/outlet . Anyhow this IC last saw use in Garys race R32GTST when it had the RB20DET in it a while back . He thinks it was originally from a Celica GT4 Group A Rally model roadie but I cant find pics of their std intercooler . Anyway whatever all the IC has to do is be about twice as good as a GTt SMIC and it will be good enough for my roadie with maybe 240-250 Kws . ATM she has a ported head with Poncams and a Nismo catback with a 3" cat . The usual PFC/Z32/740 Nismo injectors . Fingers crossed I'll have a torquey responsive low to mid 200s car that looks about as factory as possible provided you don't look too close to the HKS turbo . Thoughts ? Cheers A .

Absolutely your call but I wouldn't go any lower in the compression ratio than standard , if anything a tad up would be better in a road RB25DET IMO . The issue is that you lose torque and response (engine) off boost and road cars spend much of their time at low or no boost . It also shows up as worse fuel consumption as well which is not insignificant with fuel prices as they are . Low CRS are , were , once the way to avoid detonation with crude engine management and inadequate if any intercooling . I know people are going to say what about RB26s being ~ 8.5 CR , the difference is that they have individual throttles so they have less restriction when all you have is atmospheric pressure trying to fight its way into the cylinders - ie pre boosting phase . ITBs give you a higher DYNAMIC CR where with singles require you to have a higher measure or static CR to achieve a similar outcome . This is why RB25DETs are 9.0 . Todays superior computers and injectors greatly increase the accuracy of engine management and there are plenty of reasonable intercooler kits out there for 33s and 34s . As I said your call but I wouldn't have a rebuilt RB25DET with less than the std CR , lower is just another way of losing that low down nice crisp responsive power most people crave . You can have big turbos and small ones , they just bolt on but you can't fix a low CR problem easily with the engine in the car . Actually scratch that because I suppose you could use a Neo head with its smaller chambers but thats more money . The right pistons should be around the same money as those 8.5 ones . Cheers A .

Well people want to talk about Commodes and V8s yet it isn't a Holden forum either . Then they want to talk about matching or bettering them with a 2.5 turbo RWD Skyline which if you think about it would be in a reasonably high state of tune to make 6L type performance . Now neither the Commode or the RWD Skyline is going to get off the line cleanly given a big bootfull - wheelspin city - thats what my GTS25T does with a std turbo/GTt cooler and 235 45 17" Michy PP2s . Thats on a good dry surface BTW and we'll assume a 110 km/h piece of road so we can use at least 2 gears ... If its a traffic light grand prix the limit won't be 110 more like 60-80 km/h which is probably around 1 gear performance . If you get busted going over then you deserve everything you get because you won't beat the law . Also don't think I'm totally Evo centric because I like all high performance AWDs and especially the old Grp A homologation specials . I will say that the Rally inspired ones make good road cars because Rally performance is closer to road performance that tarmac race performance is . What have the V8 Super Nascars inspired in the way of production cars and what if any of their make up can you buy even in toned down form from a dealership ? Not everyone wants an 1800 Kg Commodore or the the lack of fuel consumption that goes with it . Not everybody wants a 320+ Kw 2.5L RWD Skyline with its peaky performance etc . Not everyone wants an Evo Lancer thats smaller lighter more agile and less comfy . We know its impossible to pick the best points of all three because advantages and disadvantages overlap . The more competition oriented a car becomes the less comfortable and user friendly it ends up being . Its really hard to argue that any car with supreme performance handling etc can be had out of anything thats remotely affordable . To each their own I suppose .

I think the issue into 5th with the larger turbo box is a combination of a big gap ratio wise and the 25 not sheding revs quickly enough from up high ie std weight flywheel and clutch . I opted to have my OE flywheel lightened when the JB clutch went in and it makes a noticable difference when changing up from high revs - or double declutching on the way down . If an engines rotating mass is heavy it carries a lot of innertia and the flywheel effects of this mean the revs don't fall quickly enough and this makes the baulk rings cone clutches work harder and sometimes not well enough . I think these days the aim is to have a car explode out of the blocks and pull like a 14 yr old up to maybe 130+ . The authorities have technology/the law/public aproval on their side and when you get caught speed theres no defending it . Now to reach 60-80 mph quickly takes a lot of torque early and you really need AWD to get it happening without the smoke and music . Power to weight with the appropriate gearing is essential . Being light weight is also essential . You may laugh but I wish there was a drag class that was speed limited to 70mph 110km/h because it would force people to attack the age old problem of slingshotting off the line and not having the warp 9 crashes if they lost it . As I said laugh if you like but where can you use 200 km/h performance on the street and how many years will you be walking everywhere after you get nailed for it ? Thats asuming you didn't lose it at escape velocity and or take some innocent out along the way . The Japs do make cars that are lightish/torquey/AWD/big brakes/smart diffs/turbo/intercooled blah blah blah . Childs play to make them waste anything with one diff and any number of cylinders . When you don't care about the 80-100 + mph anymore and you want afordable street performance you buy an Evolution Lancer . They still wind up to some impressive speeds but their focus is on 0-80 mph which is better on the street than 50-150 mph performance . Everything you could want for them is available and they pull buggery at sub goal cell speeds . Your call .

Mmm , no I don't think LS engines are what you'd call MATEE or more awesome than everyone else . The punch is mainly in the capacity and for its capacity aluminimum makes the block and heads relatively light . Some credit has to go to its EFI and ignition systems because these add a lot of refinement to any engine . The thing is that for a six litre engine they are hardly the bees knees and I think locally this is because Commode Door drive lines and body shells aren't the same as some USDM cars . There was actually an engine option in the US that the Yanks couldn't stomach and it had double over head cam lids on each bank . From memory Lotus did the heads but not sure ATM . Anyhow it revved and made good power but the Americans avoided them because it didn't spin the wheels at starter motor revs . Anyway I call LS engine Ford 9 Inch diff syndrome , not high tech or good quality materials - just big and lots of . IMO the REAL issue is that most manufacturers slap together a big heavy car to throw a V8 at and then you suffer the mid size "performance truck" issues . If they hook up they go in a straight line but fail dismally one you encounter bends and twists . The big lurid slides/drift wank business is anything but fast though it does impress the tyre screech and smoke kiddys . Most people I know wouldn't call a Commodore agile or want to push them hard around twisty windy roads . Too big too heavy and don't want to stop or change direction because of it . Multiu cam multi valve heads are about lots of valve/breathing area into compact efficient combustion chambers . You cannot replicate with two valves what you can do with four and buckets/push rods/rockers do not constitute a high performance valve train in my book . Show me a current F1 engine with pushrods or two valves per cylinder or big open chambers . Sorry , I don't want one . A .

There is no cheap way to equal or better a 6+Litre V8 with any RWD R series Skyline . If you're starting with less than half the capacity its a real big ask to attempt it . I personally agree that the only real path is cubic inches and to have any hope of getting close with an engine you can live with means some RB30 or even slightly larger engine . The V8s feel good because they make lots of torque and don't have to rev to do it . They haul from lowish revs meaning they can pull tall gearing and nowdays seem to keep going to 6-6500 revs ? Anyway an RB30 gives you around half their capacity and FI helps provided you can get the power to the ground . Having 6L Chev performance comes at some cost and I'm glad I don't have to feed a daily driven one , I'm also glad not to have to sit in a Commode Door because they leave me feeling cold . I'd prefer to drive my R33 because its comfortable and has acceptable styling and street performance levels are subjective anyway . Adequate is enough . In a way having a "tough car" is a bit like having a psychotic Rotweiller , unpredictable and apt to bite you without warning . If you really want to do it with a Skyline then its going to take a lot of money and more cubes or an AWD one that can get highly strung power to the ground and a lot of revs . Ultimately the answer is that Skylines creamed the V8s in race trim 20 yrs ago but road cars compared to race cars are worlds apart . You also have a motoring public here that perceives that ultimately V8s are the pinnacle and even when you beat them it doesn't register . I think rather than entering a pissing competition you are better off having something YOU like and paying to please yourself rather than everyone else . They can pay for their own entertainment . A .

I put a bit of searching into locally available Mobil 1 oils and most seem to think the current M1 0W30 and 5W30 oils are "Green" oil because their formulation was changeed a few years ago . Long story short , a very effective anti wear agent in oill is Zinc Di Alkyldithiophospate (ZDDP) but the eco Nazis have convinced the authorities that in higher concentrations eventually poisons Cat converters reducing their effectiveness . Probably the engine components that work oil the hardest are the valve train ones and generally its the interface between the cam lobes and rockers or buckets . "old school" iron V8s need heavy valve springs to push valve crash or bounce further up the scale when you want to rev the things higher and higher . Because in these engines the valve springs are trying to control the innertia in the followers/push rods/rockers/caps/valves when you use high poundage springs they exert really high point contact loadings on the followers and cam lobes . If you run "Eco oils" in these old dinosaurs they destroy the buckets/lobes/rockers in short order . Now , what the General doesn't usually tell people is that virtually all late pushrod engines have roller cam followers so the contact loadings/friction/effective anti ware oil additives are not as critical as they once were . Four valves per cylinder DOHC engines are generally more forgiving because their valves are smaller and lighter and don't need high spring rates to stop the valves rebounding off their seats to reasonably high revs ie 7 . Now I don't think an RB25DET driven with a bit of sympathy is overly hard on its oil provided it and the filter is changed regularly . If you push it hard enough to get it pretty hot then any 30 weight oil is a bit marginal IMO . Really only you can decide if cost vs reliability is the priority though I don't . I get back to this later , cheers A . `

Actually Busa engines are not in short supply 2nd hand . You go down to your local wrecker and say I'll have that one , they wipe the blood and hair off and box it up for you . The point I make is that 1000 horsepowers worth of turbochargers is pretty extreme for a 2568cc car engine if its used on the street . A .

The cartridge numbers for the GT3040/GT3082R are 700177-9 for the 50 compressor trim HKS spec version and 700177-14 for the 56 compressor trim version Garrett usually push . Sadly the 56T one was very common and there are a fair number of them in circulation . My HKS list quotes the GT3037S 56T (port shrouded comp cover version same as GT3076R Pn 700382-12) as being 480 PS and their spec version of the GT3040/GT3082R (50 comp trim one) as 500 PS . The reality of the matter is that half an RB26s 2568ccs or 1284cc isn't a lot to have to spin up a 500 odd horsepower turbocharger . Try to imagine a GT3040 on a Suzy GTi 1300 . A .

Some people consider that 2530s and GTRSs and GT2835s and GT3037s can be a bit lazy in twin form on an RB26 . I think GTRSs is as far as I'd go on anything with number plates even on a 2630 . IMO from the GT3037/GT3076R and up is getting a bit extreme on anything other than a single purpose drag car . Like most I've read articles on the Japanese with their denuded slingshot cars but they are not something most would want to use for anything else , basically bloody useless except for the very rich on a drag strip . It takes a lot more that two bigish turbos to make a GTR a drag king . I couldn't imagine an engine that was a clapped out Camry one to 6500 revs then an unguided missile thereafter . Anyway on paper the HKS spec GT"3040"R , todays speak called a GT3082R , is a better one than the one Garrett generally markets though they've been around long enough its exclusivity rights to be over . I'll look up the numbers later so you know how to ID each type . The only real difference aside from a HKS turbine housing is the compressors trim which is 50 on the HKS variant and 56 on the one Garrett usually sells . Same comp housing same center section . A .

The NS111 turbine is the one you see when the turbo specs say 53.8mm 76 trim GT28 turbine . Its native in GT2530/GT2535/GT2540/SR spec GTSS/GT2860RS/all GT2871Rs inc GTRS . There's even an absoulute dog version having this turbine driving the 76mm 48 comp trim wheel called GT2876R . The 62 trim version of this NS111 turbine is what you get in GT2854R and the 707160-9/RB26 spec GTSS . When you see GT28 turbine size specs as "53.0mm" 62 trim thats the one you get in turbos like GT2554R and GT2560R which is what SR20DETs get in either plain or ball bearings - the "R" on the end means rolling element ball bearings . I think they are actually a TB25 turbine that was carried over to the lower end of Garretts GTBB turbo family . Its interesting that the OE R34 Garrett BB turbos are a unique GT2556R , not something I've looked into and possibly with a ceramic turbine ? Not sure there . You do get some say in the compressor housings on GTR turbos and I'm not 100% certain where the changeover is from T25 to T3 to T4 . I do know the smallest ones go directly on the cartridge without an adapter ring and its these ones that the small AR ratio ones ie 0.42 . The 0.60 AR ones are more likely to be restyled T04B ones to suit an RB26DETT . Another give away is the way the wastegate actuators are mounted on the compressor end I think being from behind or in front of the comp housing . BTW these SR spec GT2860R/GTSS turbos use cartridge number 446179-53 which is also used in the Ssayong Musso spec GT"2854R" , and why its called that I think is because its in Mercedes diesel spec GT2854R housings . I'll find the turbo number and post it up . Bottom line is if that cartridge is freely available it'd be easier to buy it than build it . A . That Garrett Musso turbo number is 735554-2 .

Thats because Garrett Japan make genuine Garrett turbos for HKS . The SR20 spec GTSS is literally an S15 specc BB GT2560R with the NS111 turbine substituted , actually HKS fit their own turbine housing but its the same AR as Garretts one and made of a similar/same high temp spec material . A .