Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

For Sale is a plastic intake wheel NISSAN SKYLINE R33 GTST SERIES 2 TYPE M RB25DET Twin Ball Bearing Turbocharger.

I bought this turbo for $650 after being told it was a R34 Neo turbo, but it clearly isn’t, so I got juped (thanks a lot to sau member Hooman).

Im now asking for $500 or best offer in return, Plus postage. But everything is negotiable! It is packaged in box ready to go. Im in Adelaide but can send anywhere in Australia. Best offer peoples!

I wont be using this turbo; I bought it as a "R34 Neo" turbo which I was going to hiflow, but now Ive decided that as this isnt a R34 model then I will just hiflow my standard turbocharger that is on my Stagea – Id hate to have the internals of this turbo gutted out when hiflowed at GCG, when someone could put it to better use.

It has zero-0.5% shaft play at the max and only has been used for under 40000kms, with the exemplary turbo condition suggesting it has been kept at stock boost for much of the time.

Here is some info I have found out about this turbo:

This turbocharger is apparently the quickest spooling turbocharger in the entire RB engine series. It is the PLASTIC Intake Wheel model, which is apparently rare!

Light intake wheel + Twin ball bearing + Light ceramic turbine wheel = a quick spool

Can be boosted up to 13psi whish would put out pp to around 320HP?

This turbo uses both the super-light ceramic exhaust wheel (lighter than titanium), twin ceramic ball bearings internally, and the super-light plastic “reinforced” intake wheel.

After further research I have found that it should be used for around 12-13psi range. Good power range from low 2000 rpm and up (say ~2200rpm)

Would be awesome on a Rb20det! Or would go great on a lightly mod’d RB25det.

Cheers, Brendan - PM me

post-18854-1142290886.jpg

post-18854-1142290939.jpg

post-18854-1142290998.jpg

post-18854-1142291057.jpg

Edited by Tangles

Plastic intake measures around 53mm width across

Ceramic exhaust measures around 44mm width across

Cheers, Brendan

sent PM.. waiting for reply

Received and answered numerous PM's, but didnt get one from you WazR32GTst (?).

Send again & I'll reply straight away!

SOLD I believe, pending payment....... bargain price too I might add!

Bad luck ppls, could have had a bargain here! LOL

Oh well, never mind, my Stagea Rims for sale are a bargain price as well (neg.)

Cheers, Brendan

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I think you're really missing the point. The spec is just the minimum spec that the fuel has to meet. The additive packages can, and do, go above that minimum if the fuel brand feels they need/want to. And so you get BP Ultimate or Shell Ultra (or whatever they call it) making promises to clean your engine better than the standard stuff....simply because they do actually put better additive packages in there. They do not waste special sauce on the plebian fuel if they can avoid it. I didn't say "energy density". I just said "density". That's right, the specific gravity (if you want to use a really shit old imperial description for mass per unit volume). The density being higher indicates a number of things, from reduces oxygen content, to increased numbers of double bonds or cyclic components. That then just happens to flow on to the calorific value on a volume basis being correspondingly higher. The calorific value on a mass basis barely changes, because almost all hydrocarbon materials have a very similar CV per kg. But whatever - the end result is that you do get a bit more energy per litre, which helps to offset some of the sting of the massive price bump over 91. I can go you one better than "I used to work at a fuel station". I had uni lecturers who worked at the Pt Stanvac refinery (at the time they were lecturing, as industry specialist lecturers) who were quite candid about the business. And granted, that was 30+ years ago, and you might note that I have stated above that I think the industry has since collected together near the bottom (quite like ISPs, when you think about it). Oh, did I mention that I am quite literally a combustion engineer? I'm designing (well, actually, trying to avoid designing and trying to make the junior engineer do it) a heavy fuel oil firing system for a cement plant in fricking Iraq, this week. Last week it was natural gas fired this-that. The week before it was LPG fired anode furnaces for a copper smelter (well, the burners for them, not the actual furnaces, which are just big dumb steel). I'm kinda all over fuels.
    • Well my freshly rebuilt RB25DET Neo went bang 1000kms in, completely fried big end bearing in cylinder 1 so bad my engine seized. No knocking or oil pressure issue prior to this happening, all happened within less than a second. Had Nitto oil pump, 8L baffled sump, head drain, oil restrictors, the lot put in to prevent me spinning a bearing like i did to need the rebuild. Mechanic that looked after the works has no idea what caused it. Reckoned it may have been bearing clearance wrong in cylinder 1 we have no idea. Machinist who did the work reckoned it was something on the mechanic. Anyway thats between them, i had no part in it, just paid the money Curiosity question, does the oil system on RB’s go sump > oil pump > filter > around engine? If so, if you had a leak on an oil filter relocation plate, say sump > oil pump > filter > LEAK > around engine would this cause a low oil pressure reading if the sensors was before the filter?   TIA
    • But I think you missed mine.. there is also nothing about the 98 spec that supports your claim..  according to the fuel standards, it can be identical to 95, just very slightly higher octane number. But the ulp vs pulp fuel regulations go show 95 (or 98), is not just 91 with some additives. any claim of ‘refined by the better refineries’ or ‘higher quality fuel’ is just hearsay.  I have never seen anything to back up such claims other than ‘my mate used to work for a fuel station’, or ‘drove a fuel delivery truck’, or ‘my mechanic says’.. the actual energy densities do slightly vary between the 3 grades of fuel, but the difference is very minor. That said, I am very happy to be proven wrong if anyone has some hard evidence..
    • You're making my point for me. 95 is not "premium". It is a "slightly higher octane" version of the basic 91 product. The premium product that they want people to buy (for all the venal corporate reasons of making more profit, and all the possibly specious reasons of it being a "better" fuel with nicer additive packages) is the 98 octane stuff. 95 is the classic middle child. No-one wants it. No-one cares about it. It is just there, occupying a space in the product hierarchy.
    • 98 and 95 have to meet the same national fuel standards beside the actual RON.  91 has lower standards (which are quite poor really), so 95 is certainly not 91 with some octane booster. It would be an easier argument to claim 98 is just 95 with some octane boosters. Also RON doesn't specify 'quality' in any sense, only the octane number.  Anything different retailers decide or not decide to add to their 95 or 98 is arbitrary and not defined by the RON figure.
×
×
  • Create New...