discopotato03

I really don't think this choice is a biggie - it can go one of two ways . Simple really . Do you want responsive turbos that will come in early enough torque wise to make a GTR weight car a nice drive 80% of the time . OR do you want a car that has another 1000 revs of gee this feels like 1500 Kg being dragged around by a low compression ratio 2570cc engine . More up top but lazy at round town revs . Take your pick . Garrett don't make a magic turbo that will give a road weight GTR wings down low and afterburners up top . No doubt they could increase the turbines trim size and the comp wheels trim and housing size but doing that raises the engine speed at which the things start to DO something . To me the GTSS/707160-9 turbos would be the go because they are designed to make a fairly std engined car torquey and responsive - to boldly go where a factory std GTR can't torque/response wise . Sorry people , they are a heavy car that got short sheeted engine capacity wise and you can't have it at both ends of the rev range - not with an RB2568 anyway . Maybe people should look at the -9's as a light cost way of having more torque - more usable torque anyway - when you don't want to go inside the engine . Sure rip the head off and port it/add higher performance cams/raise the static CR to 9.4 like GMS did and run the car on high octane juice/E85 and make a squillion expensive horsepower . Also have a car that's a slug to drive normally and has to be booted everywhere to make it go . AWD cars are animals when you lay the boot in and they go from sane revs , when you have to balance power with your right foot it works so much better when you're not at the top end off your rev range and fighting a gearbox that doesn't like changing at 7500-8000 revs . In the twisty windies it would be a bastard to drive with biggish turbos cams etc . When torque over a useful rev range means something use the GTSS/-9 , when it doesn't and you own an oil well go larger . A .

Provided you have control of the fueling and timing it shouldn't be a problem , noise and cops aside . The theory is that the best exhaust is no exhaust behind a turbocharger which obviously isn't going to cut it in a road car . The turbo rally people like to start out big behind the turbo and step down in stages on the way to the back . What this is said to do is maintain gas speed in the exhaust system as the gas cools and contracts so to speak . Its a way of having a large volume behind the systems chief restriction , all gasses are channelled and accelerated into the turbine housing , so the red hot gasses have room to expand into . The way to drive the turbine is to have hot gas at speed on one side and a large volume to spread out into on the other side . As the gas cools it wants to slow down if the exhaust tract is the same all the way to the back , if it slows down too much you can have reversion issues if say the turbo/exhaust manifold/ports/valves/cams are sized to make high rev grunt . So , the way to keep it moving is to step the tube size down in stages so that the gasses maintain some momentum and velocity . My old dinosaur Subaru RX Turbo (1.8L 2 valve tiny port flat four GT2554R turbo) has a 3" tube from the turbo to the back of the gearbox and 2 1/2 from there . Its surprisingly quiet but both mufflers are in the 2 1/2 section behind the 3" cat . It still has its AM radio tech computer and suffers no reversion crap/no pops spits OR drones anywhere . I suggest that if you have to do something to reduce noise start at the back , its the cheapest easiest way that gives the least restriction in an exhaust system . Car manufacturers having been doing precisely this for some years now . A .

The compressor wheels in the GTSS/AKA GT2859R 707160-9 are slightly smaller in diameter than the GT2860R family . I've never had a -9s cartridge to measure its compressors tip height but I think you can be sure that HKS had Garrett brew up something that works . They are after all a specific RB26 application unit . I don't know why more people don't use these -9 turbos in street GTRs , the exact HKS unit (GTSS) from Garrett at a Garrett price . The only thing HKS did with them was add waste gate actuators which is why you can buy these turbos with or without Garrett ones . IMO the reason why these turbos work so well is that they help a smallish low compression ratio 2570cc six drag a tonne and a half of Skyline around . Boost for torque is important when the engines capacity is marginal for the weight of a car and these 707160-9s I'm told make for more torque everywhere than any OE RB26 turbocharger . Again IMO if you're serious about having a usable torquey street GTR you have two choices , basically use these turbos or throw an RB30 at it . Deluxe option is probably RB30 + 2 GT2530s , got a V8 that revs then . Just on those old HKS spec GT2510s , they use the basic Garrett TB25 turbine like S15 BB turbos have but add the same 60.1mm 63 trim compressor that the GT2530s use . In those days it was considered that using a smaller sized turbine behind a known good compressor was the way to make a turbo more responsive . They did the same with 2540s and 3040s . The better later thinking is to size the compressor to match the turbines drive characteristics and we now have the GTSS and GTRS which replaced the 2510 and 2540 dinosaurs . A .

Garrett is actually producing a hybrid GT3576R using basically a GT35 UHP turbine in a GT3076R , reverse of the GT3082R/GT3040R . GCG said it was OE on one of the late Falcon XR6 or Typhoon type things . Cheers A .

Yep , I agree with Arthur about Skylines being open road GT cars . As soon as the surface conditions get slippery and or the road tight twisty windy my moneys on the Lancer , I haven't been in a hard worked Rex but I know beyond the shaddow of a doubt that I can do things in the Evo that my R33 couldn't hope to . A .

I know its hard but you have to think the economics with cars . Just assuming you went with a 15G R33 the four you saved would more than make up the performance difference . If you aim to throw a lot of money at it the purchase price is important . Also there will probably be a lot more in the range of good cheap pre loved performance parts for R33s because there are lots of them out here . True the 34 has some mechanical updates but personally their styling turns me off . It also may pay you to look at cars already modded because sometimes you can pick them up cheaply for whats done to them ie wheels exhausts etc . Take your time and hold out for one in really clean condition because they are still out there . A .

I think from a practical viewpoint you have to ask yourself what you truly want/expect from your car . Manufacturers build - er construct cars to be reasonable all rounders because that's what the mass market wants - has been conned into wanting . Have you noticed these days advertising fro new cars , 16 drivers hand bags/15 zone AC/no car sound/IRS ABS ASC and for the backseaters a HMV TV . I keep asking what about the car ? Does it stop steer handle and motivate well enough . So many don't . I have three cars now , the old 86 Subie RX Turbo , the 96 S2 GTS25T , and now the 99 Evo 6 GSR . They are all very different and all shine in their own unique ways . The Zoob owes me a WRX and was an interesting if expensive toe in the water with AWD , it started out FrWD/selectable RWD with no center diff and I had an expensive hybrid (close ratio/lockable center diff/short low range gears) box fitted . SK said that having AWD doesn't make a car with woeful steering/suspension geometry handle well and you can take that one to the grave . It didn't stop the handle scratching body roll and we're going to die chronic understeer you get from lethal positive camber and shudders negative caster . With Gary's advise I went down the road of considerably larger anti roll bars firmer rear springs and as much front caster as it was possible to get from spacing the front control arms forward on the compression struts (radius rods) . Night and day difference , goes round corners as well if not better that a lot of much later than 1986 build cars do . The car is light at 1070 Kg so with what most of you people consider very low power feels quite good - to me anyway . It will NEVER hold a candle to say an MY2000 WRX but a lot of the value was the learning exercise , the down side is I get to sell it for a very small fraction of what it owes me . The R33 , it was a clean 80K (mileage) car when I bought it and had the 8.5" Nismo LMGT4 wheels and the SK Bilstein Whiteline suspension fitted already . I've done the head/cams/PFC/R34 SMIC so the money I've spent has not been mega I suppose , sort of the basis for more power mods it may never get . This car has not been on a dyno yet and I suppose with its std ceramic turbo may make 200 Kw , don't know . It drives nicely and is roomier than the RX or the Lancer , would ultimately be the better open road car of the three . Still could do with an RB30 and taller gearing - all money of course . Now to the Lancer , IMO to drive it round the burbs Camry style its just like any other late 90s Japanese 2L car except it rides more firmly and there's a fighter plane in the rear view mirror . You start out thinking so what , is it just a gimmick ? First you suss out the usual brakes/steering/controls and then start to drive a bit more spiritedly , steering is very fast and sharp and the Brembo brakes make you think you can stop the planet . I never hammer a car until I know what its like driven normally and ease things up over time in safe instances , driven hard the Evo feels like it'll eat whatever you throw at it and its very easy to think it knows no limits . What it tells me is that it has higher limits than most cars but driven beyond its or the drivers limits the off is going to be a monumental one . My 6 is unusual because it is completely factory standard so gives a good indication of what manufacturers can do when they try hard enough . Horses for courses , the Skyline GTR was developed to be a tarmac winner in the narrow focus of FIA Group A which is why it had the odd 2568cc engine size to suit the class weight that Nissan wanted to run them in . The Evo 6 was also a homologation special aimed at Group A Rallying and did what Mitsy wanted , kept winning the class at international level . A good friend of mine has always said that rally based cars make better road cars than road race oriented ones because the power they make has to start early and have a really beefy mid range . The rally classes mandated turbo restrictors to try and make a level playing field . It very quickly forced the rally teams to develop engines that made a lot of torque starting very early a tapering off at the limit of the restrictors . Anti Lag Systems was a part of it but that was really was aimed at spooling the turbo off the line and not losing turbine revs between gears - it does when you're up it . These engines had to make brutal torque with not a lot of revs to be competitive and guess what , road cars work best with lots of torque in the low and mid range . You don't have to pull telephone number revs to make them go which makes them easy to drive and you'd reckon more predictably on the limit . Mitsy did it with split pulse manifolds and twin scroll turbochargers and larger A/R turbine housings than their single scroll cousins . Subaru mostly stayed single scroll and had to rely on the ALS to pull the bottom end up . The Evos have been through a lot of revisions (2-10) so there was ample opportunity to change things along the way to steadily improve the package - to evolve . I hear Nissan was financially doing badly in the GTR era and while they went through three body revisions the mechanical package didn't change markedly . Also the death of turbocharged tarmac racing left them with nowhere to go in competition - no justifiable development budget . I wouldn't say std Evo's are a drag weapon but then again what production car is , GTRs and Rexs were certainly never designed to be either . Now power wise , R32 GTR was advertised as having 209Kw where the Evo 6 was 206 , in GSR trim you're looking at 1360 Kg vs I think 1480 for the 32GTR . If you started with an RS Evo 6 it'd be 1260 Kg vs ~1480 . Mass and how its distributed is very important in a high performance car , you have to be able to accelerate and slow it and from time to time make it change direction . The Lancer is going to be using the same sized wheels/tyres/brakes as a GTR and has ~ 200 Kg less to do everything with . They can both put all their weight in to traction but the GTR isn't doing it all the time because the designers wanted GTRs to have RWD handling characteristics . Now you can modify both though we all know that working engine wise on a GTR is painful , by comparison doing a manifold turbo and exhaust to an Evo is easy . Flash tune the existing computer and most would be happy with the 250-260 torquey available Kw they can develop . May need larger fall in injectors there . True you won't find it easy to match a 2.5+L turbo RB but you're not carrying around their bulk and weight either . This is why I keep telling people to look closer at the Nms than the Kw numbers . A good AWD car can put big torque to the ground far better than a 2WD one but there is always a weight penalty . The RWD won't do it as well initially so they have to rely on having more power after the wheel spin stops to have enough legs to get in front . If I had my way the production drag racing world would be very different and actually impose speed limits . That way it would focus on exploding off the line and would force people to concentrate on the most difficult phase of the runs . It may even go part way to preventing people driving at ballistic speeds on public roads and wiping others out . Maybe turbo restrictors , Group A WRXs and EVO Lancers used them as did ALL the Group A GTRs that were raced here in Australia . I believe they did more good than bad because they forced people to concentrate on developing torque which is whats its really all about . Killer torque with high tractive effort and the means to make it change direction and stop . I thought long and hard about MY2000 GC8's but the suspension upgrades , more money , to make it happen didn't appeal to me . The gearbox debacle , don't know what you do there . My older RX L Series Zoob also has a flat four and having been inside one don't really want to go there again . Mongrel split cased aluminium thing that sits too far forward in the body to have good weight distribution . Hate the left handed firing order and the effort to make them twin scroll not worth it IMO . GC8 is smaller and lighter than a 99 Lancer but Mitsy went to a bit more effort to make the package a better thing than Subaru did IMO . I was never going to buy a GC8 STi and have never been in one but I know people who did and got the nothing under 4000 etc spiel . Just me but I couldn't warm to Impreza styling and the post 2000 ones look god awful to me . Ultimately bang for buck is important and trying to get as close as possible to what you want factory standard is important . Having a reasonably easy upgrade path if you must modify it makes economic sense because more of what you earn stays in your pocket . If you could have it for sixteen grand with 12 months rego would you do it ? A .

I'm not the greatest fan of the humble GT30 UHP turbine , it's not that it isn't a reasonable design but the 84 trim size IMO is too big . Some of the later larger GT turbines (GT37 and GT40) are being used in 78 trim size and it should have filtered down to the GT30 and GT35 UHP turbines - IMO . The GT28 NS111 turbine tops out at 76 trim and the sadly competition only 60mm version of that design (TR30R family) is available for those units in 73 or 76 trim . The largest of the TB31/TA34 turbines is 76 trim , the largest of three sizes . BTW the compressor in the said Hi Flow isn't a 71.1mm GT35 series wheel , I have seen one bare and deliberately didn't turn it over to look at its part number - didn't want/need to know . A .

For the money and effort involved to "Hi flow" a GT3076R into a VG30 BB OP6 housing I don't think its good bang for buck . For starters if you use the port shrouded T04E compressor housing , stupid not to with a smallish turbine housing , you'd probably still have to space it out and all of the air/water/oil plumbing has to be changed . One off bits and pieces that cost silly money compared to simply refitting the std plumbing like you can with the GCG type Hi flow . Nismoids right , a 3076 with all is dogs barking can easily break 500 Hps worth of airflow but the reason why people never get all 43 beans out of them is they won't use the largest 1.06 A/R GT30 turbine housing . As for the 52 trim versions of the 76.2 mm GT37 compressor , they're not that far behind the 56 trim version and the 7/7 bladed compressor wheel versions I wouldn't piss on . I'll be blunt , most people new to them don't know what 450-500 Hp is like at the engine let alone the wheels and you can reach the traction limit of any RWD Skyline real easily without anything like that kind of power . Also an RB25 is never going to be what you'd call crisp and responsive cranking 450-500 and I don't think it would "feel" like a fast exciting road car to drive . Dunlop destroyer yes , sporty - no . I know what the SK GO33GO went like and it was silly fast and still couldn't use everything it had through its two driven rear wheels . It was quick and responsive and felt like a real fun car to drive . From memory it cranked out about 266 Kw at the treads and amongst other things used a GCG Hi Flow with an OP6 turbine housing on it . A real OP6 not the aftermarket one . Now big turbos and OE style turbine housings . This is always setting the system up for a fall because rarely is the waste gates ability to bypass enough to cope with the airflow into , meaning greater exhaust flow out of the engine . At the very least the bastard hybrid should have a port shrouded compressor housing because the turbine housing is pretty small compared to the turbines native ones and will try to spin it up early with all the restricted hot side and boost creep issues . But people still do it and still run into the same hurdles - and the turbo still doesn't get the user up to its advertised power level so really you have to ask yourself - why go there ? I beg you to reconsider the difference between 266 and maybe 280 bastard Kw . For the expense the lag the lack of traction when it all comes in with a bang and chronic boost control issues . The GCG OP6 really is the better option and the smart economic one . Jesus christ it even LOOKS standard and fits up with all the cheaply available factory hardware . IMO the 15 extra Kw of wheel spin you won't miss , nor the defects or the greatly increased cost of using the Garrett turbo . Invariably one day you gonna want to sell out of this car and when you compare the build cost to the sale price you cry a lot less when the numbers are closer together . Build usable power , anything else on the street is lunacy . Your call , cheers A .

I started a long post but deleted it because I think cubic dollars can go into a GTR and it could still be beaten by smaller lighter cars . Long story short are you out to win or track a GTR ? A .

I think you need to decide exactly what power level you want and size the turbo/s 10-15% above that . I personally think a GT4088R is more modern wheel wise than the Z turbos older T series wheels but the GT turbo is also more expensive . On an RB26 head I'd look at it like this because this is where the equivalency lies and response can be won and lost . Std an RB26 is essentially a twin scroll turbo engine that has two scrolls and two waste gates , they happen to be on two individual turbochargers . To emulate it with a single you again need two scrolls and two waste gates because there is no other way to divide the pulse energy of the front and rear groups of three cylinders . You can put a single turbo and gate onto it but doing that basically means you're forsaking the low end for the top end and doing it with a lower budget . I really wish people could forget about Hp/Kw numbers and concentrate on torque numbers and the spread of torque . Anyway what can you afford to spend ? Big twin scroll singles with divided manifolds housings and two gates can help you make big numbers but with 2.6 litres I think it would feel pretty flat till halfway up the rev range . A 3L bottom end makes it a lot easier to have some mid range because the engine can make it with or without the big blower on the side . I'm really beginning to think that dirtman is onto something with the twin GT2871R's (GTRS) because he can use a lot more of what Nissan gives him on a 26 so the cost of building it should be less . It would be really interesting to see the torque differences of twin 2530s GT2860RSs and GTRSs on a reasonably well developed RB26 - porting cams and a decent say 8.75-9.0 static CR . I realise that singles are easier to work around than the factory twin system but if it were me and I had the engine out of a GTR I would be trying to rehash things to make the turbos easier to work around than they are standard . In any case if you got them working properly there's no need to fiddle with the things so the complexity wouldn't matter so much . Cops would be able to pick any big single on any RB engine . A .

The facts are that the T04Z's marketed by Garrett and HKS use the exact same cartridge or center section and wheels . The only difference is that Garrett's housing are generic diesel engine ones where HKS's are petrol performance ones . The compressor end one is port shrouded so that users can get away with using "response" sized turbine housings on petrol engines and not get compressor surge . From memory HKSs turbine housings are T4 international twin entry mount flange but only have a single passage or scroll within the housing , no doubt its made of some high nickle content iron to cope with high petrol engine EGT where the diesel truck housings are not . I know people use T3 flanged , T3 Euro flange , housings made for T4 turbines such as the Z turbos P trim but its probably not the way to get the best out of them . Given a choice the GT4088R is a more modern unit but the word on the net is that some BWs may be better again and cheaper in twin scroll . Cheers A .

You could try stepping the last section of the exhaust down to 2 1/2" and fit a straight through muffler at the back . IMO it's more important to have the exhaust big at the front than the rear . The gas loses its heat very quickly and when it does it "contracts" and invariably slows down . Your call .

R32 RB25DE block with RB26 head and internals inc piston oil squirters , basically RWD RB26 with RB25 number on the block . When you say ultimate , ultimate for what purpose . A .

Nope don't agree , the greatest advantage of AWD is having 100% of the weight of the car on its driving wheels . I am Evolution Mitsubishi biased and the surprising thing is they don't cost the earth if you take your time and shop around . The economics . You get a lot better basis in an Evo than you do in anything Nissan . The fact that they went through so many detail changes between 1 and 10 means they evolved significantly and updated every two or so years . There is so much good bolt on gear available for Evos and a lot of it looks like the factory gear does . A four wheel drive Skyline is a major effort to do anything to and the parts are generally very expensive . The Drive . I was taken for a run in modified Evo 7 and had the opportunity to drive a really clean bog std Evo 6 for a few hours and it was very interesting . Straight away you can feel that the steering is very sharp and more precise than my GTS25T and the cornering abilities in the twisty windies leaves you wondering if there are limits - which there obviously are . My R33 has the Sk Bilstein Whiteline suspension and light 17 x 8.5 Rays wheels and good Michelin rubber under it but didn't have a hope of staying with that Lancer on its std 11 yr old suspension and 17 x 7.5s with Bridgestone Potenza RE01R's . And the brakes , OMG , the biggest worry in those cars is getting rear ended when everyone else can't pull up quick enough . The look . If you want to get noticed Evos are a great way to do it because they stand out in a crowd . The nose the bonnet the Brembos and the F18 parked on the bootlid . That big intercooler out front for all the world to see - legally . The Subaru crowd got really paranoid when I drove that Lancer round the burbs , I wonder if they'd worked it out ... Why not a Rex ? IMO better developed suspension as OE and a more reliable transmission . Oh and a useful boot compared to a GC8 . Bottom line . Smaller lighter and more nimble than any six cylinder Skyline and far cheaper to get organ relocating capability out of . Evos are really more STi territory than the usual WRX's but if you buy wisely you can get down into upper normal WRX money for what I think are better cars . Street car performance wise ? To me what happens over 140 clicks is irrelevant , the Skylines Evos and Rexs can easily do more std but its how they get there that's significant . I found Evos to be deceptive because they , with the std (E4 and later) , twin scroll turbo system build boost and torque in a MUCH more controllable fashion than most things and don't give the illusion of speed like a lot of cars do . Much more linear torque delivery and mind numbing abilities to get it to the ground . I just want one ... A .

Like lots of things clutches are consumable items and nothing is going to stand up to hard use forever . Being in QLD I think its good advise to speak to Jim Berry because he delivers on whats asked for . A .

IMO if you were going to buy something new you should look into what HKS call the "GT3240R" - if you want something between a GT3076R and a GT3582R . Its still in production and if like the GT3037S's you can buy the through Garrett without the HKS turbine housing your in . Get a T3 flanged GT30 IW T housing and and get it re-profiled to suit the "GT32" turbine . For those who don't know the "GT3240R" is similar to the GT3540R AKA GT3582R . HKS gets Garrett to crop the turbine back to GT32 84T dimensions and the compressor comes back a trim size from 56T to 54T . Compresor housing is the same but profiled inside to suit the fractionally smaller 54T wheels inducer/profile . Personally I think anyone's mad not to run the Garrett port shrouded compressor housing on GT3582Rs if you use smaller A/R turbine housings . The real answer in the power and response stakes is twin scroll turbo systems but until Garrett make twin scroll twin integral gate turbine housings you're stuck with the compromise . A .

I don't know of any 0.68 A/R turbine housing for a GT3582R , maybe he means a 0.63 A/R Garrett one ?

By my calculations an 86.5mm bore and 73.7mm stroke gives 2598cc capacity . I believe many consider 87.5mm the bore limit on an RB block and with this and the RB26 crank stroke the capacity is 2659cc . At 86 by 85 the RB30 comes out at 2962cc std . If your states legislation allows don't you think this would be an easier way to go ? If you only spent money on two areas in an RB30 - crank collar and coated std piston crowns the build would still be reasonably affordable . A .

Actually the compressor wheels in the 2540's were larger than GTRS's use . 2540s used a 76mm T04E compressor wheel from memory in 46 trim where GTRS's have a 71.1mm GT wheel in 52 trim . GT2835's also use 71.1mm GT comp wheels so again smaller than 2540's T04E wheels . Don't know why HKS used that 2540/T04E comp , would have been better off using twin 2535's . A .

Paul I would expect a 0.86 housing to give similar results on a 2530 or a GT2860RS provided they use the same compressor housing . I think it goes without saying that twin TD06's or GT2835's is a lot of turbo in twin form on a std capacity RB26 and I wouldn't think would boost too well down low . I look at turbine housing A/R size a a means of tuning turbo/ine speed around engine speed - effectively where you want the thing to boost relative to engine speed . A .

For my 2c engines can feel sluggish when stone cold for three reasons . Firstly the cold gun effect where you're losing a significant amount of combustion heat into cold piston crowns/valves/chambers so less heat to develop cylinder pressure . Secondly oil shear drag from cold oils esp mineral ones . Thirdly warm up mapping is different to get heat into the thing quickly because often this is the dirty time for most engines emissions wise . The cat has to be brought up to temp as quickly as possible to be able to work as intended . I like to give my engines a short idle period to get the fluids circulating internally . One thing you will notice is that a good synthetic oil doesn't have as much drag as mineral ones tend to when cold . I think what you are feeling is computer mapping that has greater emphasis on warming the engine up rather than giving best performance . As people have hinted having some mechanical sympathy goes a long way with cold engines , also don't forget the gearbox and diff oils work better with some heat in them and you only get that after driving for a while . 2c spent , A .

Or be a pathfinder and put a KA24 in and turbocharge that , may be long in the stroke but they are long in the rod and use a chain driven cam lobe on bucket valve train . Yes and an iron block too . Std fitment in USDM S13 (SOHC) S14 (DOHC 16v) . Power delivery is said to be like a good SR20DET pulled down 600 revs . Don't need to rev when you can't get traction in the mid range , cheers A .

I'd be a bit interested to see if the same could be achieved using an RB20 turbine housing on either a GT2860RS or even a GT2871R 48T cartridge + RB25 compressor housing . I guess it depends what this new turbos bits cost . A .

Hi all , sorry if this has been covered but did not have time to read this whole section . Basically I was getting a blue slip to change the engine number in my old Subaru and asked the person doing the inspection if the RB30 in an R33 was a straightforward thing . He said yes the weight of a RWD R33 makes the 3L conversion a formality provided the rest is as std . Is this what others have found doing this swap in NSW ? Cheers , Adrian .