discopotato03

I'll throw in a few more facts and call it a day . With the 4/5/6 Ralliart made the Evolutions from the ground up , they didn't start with a front wheel drive shell and sart bolting bling bits on . This is why you can't economically start out with a CE Lancer and end up with an Evo 6 . The Evos started as a combined effort by MHI and Ralliart and when they started ging places MHI had Ralliart do the 4/5/6 from a clean sheet . If you don't think so park a 6 and a CE next to each other and crawl all over them . Things like lights and doors maybe the same but just about everything else is unique . The sporting Evolutions of which there had to be 500 of 5000 homologation specials were of course the RS models and they were 100 Kg lighter because all the lounge room stuff like elec windows/drivers hand bags/radio/aircon/ABS/AYC alloy wheels were omitted - just like a real racer . They used thinner glass as well . They had to have the same format suspension and suspension location points to qualify for Group A rallying . Once you go to the larger 7s , CT9As , the rules had change to WRC regs and the manufacturers could alter things and not have to have them in their road cars . A WRC 7 is not a sporting evolution of a road car Evo 7 and Mitsy could do things to make the road cars a bit easier to live with . Also the CT9As were developed by Mitsy rather than Ralliart because they are not technically production homologation specials . Some manufacturers like Toyota went to the extremes of shoehorning the GT4s running gear into a Corolla making it a sort of unique kit car . Another story . Um yes fuel consumption , what fuel consumption . From what I hear 10/100 is virtually impossible to get from even stock standard ones - not matter how sedately you drive them . I asked Scott Kahona (Insight) about this and he puts it down to the short close gearing and low down torque they make . Also they are hardly fly weights for a 2L car . Most Evos had smallish fuel tanks but from memory the 8MR and 9s had a larger I think 55L tank , the other may be 43-45 but I can't remember . Ride . The CT9As had an optional PP or performance pack which consisted of lighter wheels and yellow sport Bilsten dampers . The rest get Tokiko dampers which are adequate if in good nick but the Bilsteins give a better ride and more controlled handling . With a bit of stuffing around they can go into a CP9A as well , I have a set of 8MR struts ready . Wheels , your a bit lucky with wheels because they virtually interchange with Skylines - well R33 GTS25Ts anyway . I bought a set of Enkei RPF1s in 17x8.5 that came off an R33 25T , they are exactly the same diameter width and offset and stud pattern as the Rays LM1 GT4s on my R33 . Same profile 235 45 tyres too . I think you need to get a ride in a few near std Evo Lancers to get an idea what they're like . If your used to firmer aftermarket suspension in your road cars then std spec Evos won't worry you . I think ownership of Evo Lancers is something you do when your tired of modifying general use type cars even performance ones . I think they are closer to what people would like to end up with if they didn't get too carried away . Sorry to be a grinch but the Pulsar GTiRs were not a successful formula , too front heavy and suffered chronic cooling systems problems . They also lacked acceptable suspension travel and the body shells are not nearly stiff enough . I think Murray Coote tried to make something of one many years ago but like Nissan Motorsports they got nowhere . Tis a pity because they are a good looking compact car but under the wool is no wolf . A .

I've never been in a 4 but my 6 is not light switch like at all . Basically all the twin scroll (4-9) 4G63Ts use the same basic wheel set and its mainly the turbine housing size Ralliart and MHI played with . As was mentioned in the other thread the 4s get the smallest 9cm turbine housing , all 6s a 10.5 one and it varied in the 7s and 8s on which variant in the series you had . The 9's up'd the anti a little with a slightly beefier center section and it uses a larger diffuser and compressor housing on the cold side . AFAIK the same TD05HR turbine and 16G6 compressor wheels though . Just so you know what to search for the Evos fit into four groups , 1-3 , 4-6 or CP9As , 7-9 or CT9As , and the current 10 . Aside from the larger Cedia based body shell the CT9As have more bolt on stuff available for them ie exhausts where say the CP9A or 6 you have to chase longer for some aftermarket bits . For a bit of future proofing the Evo 7 is possibly a good place to research because they were the first of the CT9As and will be cheaper than an 8 or 9 . I bought an Evo 6 because I prefer the styling and an immaculate example came up for 16.5G . It's a 99 model with 135 k so not super fresh - still good for me though . You will not get a RWD Skyline off the line as quickly as any Evo from 4 on if both are standard - not a hope in hell . By the time you find traction the Mitsy is gone and they pull like buggery and dont let up until I don't know how far up in 4th . I think its very hard to find as much fun for the money in anything out there . BTW I know for a fact that with larger injectors and fuel pump , larger 10.8cm turbine housing on the factory turbo , aftermarket hot side intercooler pipe , good 3" exhaust and tune 240-250 at the wheels is straightforward on E85 . This is on an unopened Evo 7 . No porting/no aftermarket cams/rods/pistons/headgaskets/manifolds/or dump pipes . Now you can get 250 at the wheels in an R34 GTt but traction is an issue if you want to use it . People tell me that handling and braking are not in the same league but it depends what you want from a car . Some want something where you can hang the tail out and opposite lock it down the road . Some want more interior space and something that they can do long distance hops in a get out reasonably relaxed . Evos don't fit the same description because they are a bit harder edged and I think you'd have to do silly things on the street to make one skate and drift all over the road . You will find the limits of a RWD Skyline long before most Evos particulary if the roads a greasy or wet . I don't intend to go looking for limits in my Evo because they exist at higher speeds and if you lose it there the crunch is a lot more lethal . Thats why the mega accidents often involve AWD turbo cars because the limits are higher . Anyway both cars are capable of being driven way beyond legal speed limits but the smaller nimbler AWD one allows you to get the rush and your rocks off without going warp 9 . If really high speeds are your ask then like most cars you can use larger cams turbos etc that make them pull up to 8k but you will lose the lower down punch built into these cars . You'd also need better rods pistons clutches etc but its all readily available . As is taller ratio diffs and alternative gearbox ratios . The MiVec or VCT 9 engine goes into E4-8 and all you need is the extra electronics to drive the inlet cams actuator . Anyhow your call . Search for the Evo 6 vs Evo 9 U Tube vid . A .

Yes I agree Evos are not the prettiest things to look at but they do a good job of cooling a hard worked engine at sub light speeds . Its not easy to get good airflow through air water and oil coolers , particularly with a transverse engine , but Mitsy managed to do it well at least as far as the Grp A era went which was 99-2000 and evo 6 . You do see Skylines with all kinds of extra cooling ducts in aftermarket air dams and bonnets and I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder . I'm a simply works broad minded person , I like what has function and function over looks suits me . You can't see it when driving it but your wallet will if its less than adequate . Something I would like to know is the development path of the first GTRs as in was it a rehash of the R32 GTST coupe or was the GTST a re engineered toned down version . I hear that Ralliart developed the Evos 4 5 6 first and then MHI toned everything down for the more mundane Lancer sedans of the era . To look all over my car its so different to a CE Lancer thats its hard to believe an Evo was a development of the CE . What I hear was that Mitsy was winning the international rally championships of the day and spent up big to stay on top - before WRC came along and killed production based race cars .

I think theres more to it that that and even though those 4G63Ts were originally from the heavier VR4 it went through lots of incremental changes between Evos 1-9 . Because it was aimed at restrictor based Rally homologation it didn't have to rev , past 5500 in Grp A trim , but it did need to make a lot of torque at what we'd consider low-medium revs . By the time the 6 came out the engine had been turned around and the turbo had the largest or 10.5cm twin scroll turbine housing and in RS and TME versions the titanium aluminide turbine wheel was available . From memory the TMEs actually had a slightly smaller compressor wheel than the GSRs 16G , I think it was called 15GK2 and where the GSR supposedly made peak torque at 3000 revs the 15G version made the same peak torque at 2750 revs and the same overall 276 Hp or 206Kw . Crunching the numbers gives 138 Hp/L or 103 Kw/L . You get all sorts of differing opinions on part time and constant 4WD and my gut feeling is that having a "center" differential has advantages over an electrically controlled hydraulic wet clutch . Some say that the Merc developed 4 Matic system which I think Nissan based the GTRs on gives the RWD then AWD driving characteristics . I think it also means that the rears have to slip before the fronts starts to drive and the transitions may possibly be inconsistant . Mitsy also throws electronics in with the active yaw control or AYC rear diff . Personally I'd rather have had the 6RSs plate LSD because I think it would be more consistant as well as durable - and 15Kg lighter without the AYC pump and reservoir etc . I had my 6 out earlier this evening and probably the nicest thing about its power delivery is that is so torquey even off boost - for a production 2L fourbanger . Its deceptive in that unless you boot it through the lower gears you don't get that welded to the seat feel but the part throttle stuff is very un two litre like . For 16.5K I couldn't pass this car up and have zero regrets . A .

Well according to specs I've seen a std Ev0 6 GSR like mine weighs 1360 kg and the RS 1260 Kg . Yep the gearbox ratios are close 1-2 and 2-3 opening up 3-4 and 4-5 , the RS version is supposeed to be close 1-5 . I particularly wanted a factory std car because you never know a base line without driving an as sold example . This car gave me faith that a manufacturer can build a production car that genuinely steers stops and goes real well out of the box . The mind set I had when I bought my 6 was that I wanted something pretty good without spending big money , at least initially . I've been down the road of major re engineering and its the best way to burn money . Someone I respect a lot said try to find something thats what you want standard and buy that . Can't beat production engineering on price . As I've said in the past I haven't been in a GTR but its not hard to imagine your R33 GTST being even heavier and having less squirt down low . To me what happens much above licence burning speeds is irrelevant in a road car and it must have good performance up to that point . I'm well over putting up with cars that have no part throttle squirt and go like an oil burning square Camry up to 4000 revs . Sort of firm but not bone jarring suspension is good and you have to love razor sharp fast rack steering . My 6's brakes are absolutely the best I've ever driven and I had to do a really extreme test to make sure the ABS actually worked . You can do subtle performance mods to Evos and made the strong mid rage torque ginormous without losing any low down squirt whatsoever . Exhaust injectors pump and flash tune . Add E85 and destroy nearly anything to 100 plus . The mods tend to be a lot more straightforward than I think GTRs are and you can actually use the performance every day . Lots of new and 2nd hand parts available and working on the things is not a tooth pulling affair like GTRs appear to be . As most of you know I have an S2 GTS25T and while its not that much heavier than the Lancer its nothing like as nimble . Even with the SK Whiteline Bilstein suspension the Skyline is low and lacks suspension travel and the steering is not nearly as precise . The brakes feel wooden by comparison and its very easy to find the limit of traction even with std turbo performance . I don't like to say that the Skyline feels slightly clumsy weight wise its just that things don't seem to come to heel as obviously as they do in the Lancer . The R33 is of coures larger/longer and more roomy but not really on par with the Mitsys Recaros for staying put . I think the truth of the matter is that Evos are a notch up overall and it makes them arguably harder on the senses and maybe not as relaxing to drive . I think Evos are the sort of car that you hide away most of the time and let off the leash when the preditor in you surfaces . Mine isn't daily driven and neither is the R33 though the old subie won't last forever . I'm pleased that the Skyline fraternity here can appreciate other makes even if their Nissan is first car wise in their life . Mine was for a few years and I still see good in both my hide aways . I find it amusing how paranoid the Rexers get when my lil white Rex killer is out and about , I don't provoke them but they go crackers anyway . Search the U tube vid Evo 6 Vs Evo 9 , I'd like a spin with the 5Th gear bird as well ... Cheers A .

Different from some peoples points of views but entertaining none the less . http://www.trinituner.com/v3/forums/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=357276&start=0 Sorry , A .

Hi all , we all know what a pain trying to find a worthwhile laptop computer with a 9 pin serial port for tuning is like . I came across a computer shop in Kogarah that deals in lots of ex lease portables and Dell seems to be their thing . I had been using an old Dell D610 I got second hand a while ago and anyone who knows a bit about the old Pentium M Centrino systems knows they are a bit slow - sort of single cam RB20 with a carby type scenerio . The thing was that it had the all important 9 pin D (DB9) serial port which seems to work best with programmable engine management systems ie PFC . There are a few serial/USB converter cables getting around but the ones with a suitable chip in one end plug are few and far between , expensive , and even the ones Datalogit ship can fail which leaves you nowhere if your computer doesn't have a real serial port . Long/short the old Dell D610's battery started to die and a mate into this stuff said go see Jimmy at Albit Computers and don't just look at batteries . I asked Jimmy what the fastest 2nd hand laptop was that had a real serial port and he came up with a Dell D630 which has more guts than the older D610 . The fastest of this family uses a Core 2 Duo 2.4 Ghz processor and has 2G of ram and a SATA 160G hard drive . I got him to put the extra 2 Gig of ram in and he threw in the Blue Tooth chip and the larger 9 cell battery for nix . It came with an original Dell Vista disc plus the usual power adapter and a near new Dell bag for $389 which I reckon is a bargin for what it is . Its noticably faster than the old one and everything in it is a generation or two better as well . I gave up on my old PC a while back and use the laptop for everything now , it goes with me on away jobs at work and the 3G Network dongle I have means wherever theres 3G phone coverage I can access the net . ATM this thing has two partitions and when its set up the way I like it will be a dual boot Win7 64 bit and WinXP 32 bit to cover most eventualities . So , anyone looking for a portable with a real serial port can do worse than these things . They were also available with processors down to 1.6 Ghz so if your on a tighter budget and just need serial and USB ports for tuning you can spend less than I did . Cheers A .

Yet Nissan chose to use two isolated waste gate systems on RB26's . A .

From most I've seen smallish paired elec fans don't cut it . The successfull method I reckon is to use one large fan even if its diameter is slightly greater than the height of the radiator core . As for triggering the fans many tend to forget that the water temp in the RADIATOR is critical and must be lower than what you want to run the engine at to regulate properly . Its the engines thermostat thats intended to set the engines lowest temperature not heighest so provided the radiator can keep the water in it cooler than the thermostats opening temperature the system will regulate temperature properly . If your cooling systems capacity is a bit lacking then the best you can do is to run the fan/s all the time or have a thermo switch located in the radiator set low . Remember its the reserve of cool water in the radiator that allows engine cooling when the water thermostat opens right up . If the rad water temp is high then the hotter water can't cool the engine can it . A six cylinder in an engine bay designed for a four is always a drama because theres no room for a clutch fan and the cramped bay often gives a poor flow path for the hot post radiator air . All the huge radiators in the world make little difference in these situations because if air banks up in the bay it won't flow well through the core resulting in poor heat transfer . IMO same old same old , RWD R32 better platform for any RB engine than a Silvia and the better big capacity route for an S13/14 is the KA24DE engine like Nissan used in USDM S13/14's . Better fit , better cooling , better weight distribution , heaps of turbo conversion gear available in the US - and its all a known quantity . Bottom line is a Silvia is not a baby Skyline and there are no factory solutions to this six into four hybrid . A .

Actually I'm a twit , or similar sounding thing . What you could do is buy Caltex EFlex and test its Ethanol content and add the appropriate amount of say Ultimate 98 to make a consistant blend of something less than 70% ethanol . To end up with E50 shouldn't be to hard . A . Must have first coffee before posting ...

I spoke to Scott K at Insight a while back and he mentioned that he has used the GM sensor system with the ViPec V88 and it has the ability to alter its settings based on the ethanol sensors readings . I think he said its about correction tables and that its not a linear change in timing and fueling between say E70 and E85 . I personally think its a bit piss poor that the service stations don't tell you the exact ratio they're pumping and it wouldn't be all that expensive for them to have readouts at the pump to show us . I suppose the cover all is that OE flex fuelled cars have the ability to self adjust and not have engine damage issues . I'm sure its been mentioned that high percentages of ethanol make for harder starting with cold engines in cold climates but I personally think theres more to it than that . Its not impossible that Caltex is playing games with supply costs of fuel grade (anhydrous) ethanol to try and make more money from it . I just wish it were possible to affordably buy fuel grade ethanol so you make your own blend up . I'm not 100% sure that E70-E85 is even a good all round mix given that so many fuel system changes (pump/injectors) have to be made to pass the extra volume to keep the high ethanol content AFRs up . I'd really like to see some experimentation done on say E25 to E50 blends to try and find a sweet spot . I reckon if you could get away with E25 to E40 you would have less of the problems people do now with pump E85 . Somewhere there will be a sliding scale with ethanol percentages and I reckon the high agro end of the scale will follow the high ethanol percentage end . Wouldn't it be nice to rock up to the servo with say 30L of fuel grade ethanol (20+10)containers , pour it in and fill with 98ULP . Consistant E50 which I think should run quite well . Or even 20L to make E33 . Nice if you could buy fuel grade ethanol . A .

If you post all the numbers on the ID plate they can be identified - if unmolested . A .

I think the ball bearing Garretts are turbo number 702987-3 with cartridge number 446179-42 . They seem to be an OE spec turbo , well wheels anyway , and the thing to know is if their turbines are ceramic . A .

Well if by standard engine you mean standard turbo I'm not so sure 3" all the way through is absolutely essential . The std turbine and turbine housing isn't real big and while 3" to a 3" cat could be ok I think you would find it easier to keep quiet with 2.5 down the back . As Nismoid said the gas cools and contracts on its way south and you don't want it to lose too much speed along the way . Noise doesn't necessarily mean power though some think its an easy substitute . A .

There is a plastic pre filter you can buy and from memory its a Volvo part . It uses large barbs something like 13 or 14mm and you can fit 1/2" fuel hose over them easily enough . If you look closely enough you can see a fine mesh sac inside these filters and they give me the impression of being more a strainer than a filter . Anyhow they would catch any crunchy bits before they got into the rollers of your main pump which I don't think you'd easily strip and fix . Years ago I had an FJ20ET engine in a Bluebird and it had a Carter pump filling a swirl pot and one of those strainers between the pot and its Bosch 975 KJetronic pump . Never had an issue but the strainer was piece of mind . A .

Yes thats a given , if air won't flow too well through the engine bay then it won't flow too well through the radiator core . A .

If they're like the 4-9 the exhaust manifold they link the outer and the inner pairs of exhaust ports ie 1+4 aqnd 2+3 . That way when the inline four cylinder goes through its 1-3-4-2 firing sequence it alternates between each side or outlet port of the exhaust manifold . The idea is that each cylinder vents into an area of low pressure because the last vented into the other side of the manifold and turbine housings scroll . This way more of the exhausting cylinders thermally excited exhaust energy (gas velocity) is screaming into the turbine blades . Where you have a single outlet manifold and single passage or scroll turbine housing all cylinders vent into the common manifold/housing meaning the average pressure inside it is higher , because of this each venting cylinder is venting into an area of higher pressure and can't exert as much energy or gas velocity into the turbine blades because of the lesser pressure differential . You can reduce the pressure in a single scroll system by increasing the size of the turbine housing but you lose turbine response by doing it . Twin scroll systems allow you to use bigish A/R turbine housings without much of the turbine lag so they are a win at low to medium as well as higher engine revs . Interestingly the Americans have come up with a torque number that they try not to exceed because if they do they bend connecting rods and break pistons - on std 4G63T engines anyway . I think its something like 400-420 ft/lbs they try to torque limit them too and go looking for cams revs and Hp numbers instead . Personally I like the idea of those sorts of torque numbers at 3-3500 revs because it makes a Lancer with AWD and sort of short closish ratio gearing a slingshot off the line and they pull like buggery in every gear . My 6 is mechanicaly std ATM but after the first time I chased a bike off at the lights and nearly ran over it I learnt not to do that . A . Um BTW , a correctly phased inline six cylinder twin scroll exhaust manifold links 123 and 456 . This is because an inline sixs firing order is 153624 and to alternate evenly between exhaust events thats how the manifold has to be . Its also done this way with parallel twin turbos on an inline 6 for the same reasons .

I ran out of time to post yesterday but I did find the Evo 10s turbo spec - its called TD05H-152G6-12T which means it has a 12cm twin scroll turbine housing . Thats getting up there size wise and def getting into what a 2.5L six would like . Mobs like Forced Performance and CBRD in the US do quite a few effective high flows based on reverse rotation 4-9 turbos and now the 10 so things are out there to play with if you can get around the Mitsubishi Evo flange pattern . Also as a heads up the staggered inlet ports on the 10 turbine housing are the opposite to what the 4-9 reverse rotation turbos have so factor this in if you're getting a manifold made . Not Nissan related but the Evo 10s turbo is clockwise rotation because its on the firewall side of its transverse engine where the 1-9 are out front on the radiator side . I think this may have been because the out front type have a greater length of engine pipe between the dump and the cat which no doubt increases the time it takes to light the cat up at cold start . A .

I gather you know that you would need an Evo10 turbine housing because the 4-9s use anti clockwise rotation TDO5H"R" turbos . The aftermarket seems to be getting a lot of horsepower (for the frame size) out of these Mitsy Evo twin scroll turbine housings but they are boring them out for larger turbines to do it . Being twin scroll twin integral gate they need separate waste passages for each half of the housing . Early ones had two holes and two flat valves where late housings ie 8MR and 9 use a single larger round hole with a divider , miror imaged "D" shape . I don't remember the exact specs for the evo 10 turbo or the output of a std 4B11T engine , I am told by reliable sources that they run 21 pounds of boost std so the flow paths can't be too small . I must look up the turbine and T housing spec of those things . A .

Hi all , I see many threads on intercooler upgrades to R33 and R34 single turbo Skylines and I'm interested in exploring the topic but doing things a little differently . Firstly my GTS25T currently has the R34GTt intercooler because it was easy to do ie it just about falls in . Secondly I'm not looking for a million Kw and I don't want to overkill in this area . The turbo I have to fit is a HKS GTRS and something like 240 odd stress free Kw would be fine for me . I don't want to go down the road of non standard inlet manifolds or extra pipework in the engine bay . I also don't want the full front mount with its considerable length of return pipe . Now of late its impossible not to notice the diesel commercials and 4WDs clogging up the roads and the vast majority of them have intercoolers nowdays . We have a few utes for getting around the yard at work and I'm always trying to see if their intercoolers look like they would fit in the unchopped nose of an R33 . My train of though is can you fit an intercooler of at least twice if not a bit more than the core area of an R34GTt into the near radiator side of a R33 . While this may sound a bit lacking from memory the twin turbo Z32 300ZX TT's made 209 kw and more torque on paper than an R32 GTR and they from memory used two intercoolers of possibly R33/34 25T dimensions . I will never race or drag my car and all I need is enough intercooler capacity to not form an air restriction or heatsoak in the 6-8 seconds of full throttle use that is usable on public roads . I'd like some bang for buck here not because I can't afford better but because I don't wish to overkill/overcapitalise with this car . Its also a challenge to find some hopefully low cost but adequate OE intercooler and have most of a car look as factory as possible . Less eye candy for rev and you protection officers to ping you for . Does anyone have access to a light truck wrecker that could measure up some of these intercoolers ? Cheers A . PS please don't come back sayng just fit a JJ return flow because I'm not interested in going that way . Ideally an intercooler with its inlet and outlet facing the same direction could be good because it could be fitted with its inlet/outlet facing the nearside to keep the plumbing short .

Be a little carefull comparing Evolution Mitsy turbos to other MHI based things because the Evos 4-10 use twin scroll turbine housings and thats makes a significant difference . Possibly the people to talk to are GT Pumps because they seem to have a good handle on the various Mitsubishi 6 series turbines and TD05/6/7 compressor wheels . You will find an interesting mix of TD06 family turbines ie TD06-SL2 TD06 TD06S TD06H TD06SH and TE06 . They can have from memory 11 or 12 blades and I think Mark has most/all on display at his shop . Where Mitsy is different from Garretts GT BB wheel rage seems to be with trim sizes . To me it looks like Garrett leaned towards big turbine trim sizes and at times compressors too . HKS seemed to take advantage of optioning Garrett compressors of the same families but in smaller trims at times . Importantly they also - oops the signals have cleared and gotta go More termorrer cheers A .

I was sitting in a motel room in Parks (central western town in NSW) waiting to work the Indian Pacific back to Sydney Central Terminal . I don't work with turbochargers for a living , well the the big diesels do have them , but I pedal trains for a living . A .

Well a lot of people used to think that the conventional , ie pre GTX , GT3071R was not really an ideal match of compressor to turbine as in getting the GT30 turbine to spin the 71mm compressor fast enough . I've alwasys thought that the GT30 turbines trim size is a little big in this instance and its not someting you can get around by changing the turbine housing from say 0.82 to 0.63 A/R . Also from what I've seen Garrett didn't seem to want to fit the port shrouded version of the T04E compressor housing on the GT3071R until the GTX version became available . There are a couple of choices you have and one is the GTX3071R and the other the mid compressor trim version of the GT3076R ie 52 rather than the more usual 56 trim size . I'd do some searching on what results people are getting from the GTX3071R . A .

Parkes waiting to work the Indian home . As was said the 0.86 A/R GT28 turbine housing is an SR configuration turbine housing not the more compact RB26 type one . As others said they would be too big anyway for an RB26 and possibly not terribly responsive on a 2630 particularly with 707160-9 turbos on it . The 0.64 A/R RB26 housings , Garretts and HKSs , seem to flow plenty with the GT28 NS111 turbine in 76 trim so I doubt there is a need for 0.86 housings to suit RB26's . Cheers A .

Nismoid would I be right in assuming that your message is to grow into a car rather than attempting to grow into a car that is a changing developing thing - in other words not a consistant known quantity ? If it were me taking a production car club racing I would be concentrating on making the thing reliable in pretty std trim and getting to know its driving characteristics while improving my own skills . I think this way people learn their own limits and more about where a car is std and what needs to change to make it a better club car . I think there are times when the numbers are less important than just getting out and having a go , you can worry too much about the numbers and form atrifical limits based on if they please you or not . The growing into the machine as it is should be the prioroty here ,IMO . A .