Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I posted this on another forum to, but you guys generally know more, just not as many rb26 people it seems....anyway. Pretty simple thread, just curious as to what single turbo you run, is it ball bearing or journal bearing, and what A/R do you use on the turbine side...also is it split flange or not. Then if you wouldn't mind commenting on spool and how the car pulls to redline.

I know my TO4R on my stock ported rx7 had a .84 A/R and it spooled decently quick, but it def died out about 7300rpm and I rev'd to 8100rpm, I would hate for that to happen again on my RB, but also don't want to wait forever for boost to hit.

Depends what sort of power/aims/use of the car to be honest

I guess I may have worded that weird...I'm just more intested in what people are actually running, not really looking for recommendations for me.

I realize this too (looked through that thread a bunch of times), but to be in there you need dyno results, which everyone might not have. Anyone elses experiences are always helpful too.

GT35R, .63 ex housing, stock rb26 550cc inj PFC d-jetro 16 psi. 309rwkw. Hakes max power at 7500-8000, comes on as early as i would expect a 700hp turbo to be able to, starts pulling about 3600.

HKS T45s .90 T04 ex housing, stock rb26, 550cc inj, remap. laggy as hell, got car with 1 smashed piston, was supposed to make 380rwkw at 20psi, made 260rwkw at 14psi(with 5 pistons), so 380 isnt out of the relms of possibility.

I think I can see what your getting at but possibly you could have asked about single turbos for RB26/results/turbine housing A/R .

That last one (turbine housing A/R) is going to depend on turbine and compressor size and availability . Its as simple as that . Often you'll find that three sizes are available (ie .6x .8xx 1.xx) and if you had no information to work off the mid sized one is the logical starting point . That way you get a result and know which way to go if the first try didn't get you what you wanted .

There is a tendancy for people to look at maximums with turbos and while a turbo may be capable of high specific output it doesn't necessarily mean an engine can run it to its limit . A huge turbo with a small A/R turbine housing is wasted because even if you could spin the thing fast enough to make the compressor work the small turbine housing won't pass the exhaust gas required to make the ENGINE work properly .

Balls vs bushes . Its hard to make a direct comparison these days because manufacturers like Garrett use different (read more modern) turbines and compressors in ball bearing turbos that bush type . It stands to reason that they wouldn't sink development dollars into a turbo with an expensive ball bearing centre section and use dinosaur wheels . Many of their bush bearing turbos like TO4S's and T04R's use old world designed turbines like the P trim TO4 which work ok but not what you'd call brilliant , its because they are based on 1970's technology and thats not yesterday . TO4Z's are an example of dinosaur turbine with modern bearing system and a well matched compressor , in HKS form the housings were designed to get the best from the wheels they use .

Bush bearing GT40's are more modern designs and sort of cover the TO4S/TO4R/TA45 range of older turbos . To look at a GT4088R ball bearing turbo next to one of the larger GT40 bush bearing turbos the differences are not always obvious and they can at times use the same style of housings . The ball bearing one is usually designed around higher temp spec turbines and housings and trim better suits petrol engines higher EGT's . The bush bearing type is usually intended to suit diesel engine characteristics like less expensive materials (lower EGT's) and different exhaust flow vs power characteristics . In the case of the GT4088R the turbine trim is good for its frame size and it uses the later 7/14 blade compressor design in 52 trim and has impressive comp map . The larger GT40 bush bearing turbos use a larger trim turbine and A/R turbine housing to suit some OEM diesel app . Volume sales to diesel engine manufacturers dictate the market here .

Bottom line you get what you pay for so sometimes old wheels in good housings with a good bearing system are plenty good enough .

Cheers A .

rb26 forged internals, PFC, 800ccsard,bosch 044pump, garrett T04Z .7 front 1.0 rear housing, full boost by 4-4500, doesnt diue off boost at all, holds past 8500rpm.

excellent turbo

Forged engine, HKS T04Z turbo 0.81 AR, PFC twin Z32 AFM, hits full boost by 4600 and puls all the way to 10k. No problems with this config what so ever. rinnung the engine nearly daily driven on 22 psi of boost. no complaints so far

hhhhhch. 10k :pwned:

230k old 26. ebay manifold garrett t04z .84 rear split.

loaded gear. fullboost by 4k

1st 2nd 3rd full bost by 5k 4600 4300 respectivly.

nice turbo. abit laggy but when it hits it hits hard :O

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

    • Yeah, the latter. No diff should have a centre replaced without checking clearances because its unlikely to be the same as whatever came out. Not that that stops most people just checking a new centre in
    • Major thread necro but how bad of a job is it to DIY? Looking at it online it looks like if you reuse your ring and pinion as long as those are in good condition it should be fine to just pull the axles/front cover and replace the diff that way? Or should I be replacing everything and doing preload measurements/gear mesh testing like the factory service manual mentions for the rear diff?
    • in my list I had the R33 GTR as the best Skyline. Infact I had all GTR's (33>34=32), the NSX, the GTO, the 300ZX, the 180SX, the S15 better than the FD RX7. I had the MR2 and the A80 as 'just' better. I also think the DC5R Integra looks better but this is an 01 onwards car. I also think the FC>FD. It's almost like aesthetics are individual! The elements @GTSBoy likes about the FD and dislikes about the 180 are inverse in my eyes. I hate the rear end of the FD and it's weird tail lights that are bulbous and remind me of early hyundai excels. They are not striking, nor iconic, nor retro cool. The GTO has supercar proportions. I maintain these look much better in person (like the NSX) especially with nice wheels and suspension which is mandatory for all cars pretty much. Some (or all) of these you have to see in person to appreciate. You can't write a car off until you see one in the flesh IMO. Like most people we probably just like/dislike cars which represent certain eras of design or design styles in general. I also think the 60's Jag E type looks HORRIBLE, literally disgusting, and the 2000GT is nothing to write home about. FWIW I don't think the Dodge Viper Gen1's have aged very well either. You can probably see where I rate bubbly coupes like the FD. I know we're straying now but the C4 and C5 absolutely murder the Viper in the looks department as time goes on, for my eyes. Wouldn't surprise me if people who love the FD, also love the MX5, Dodge Viper, Jag E Type, etc etc.
    • I used to hate R31s, and any of the other Nissans that led up to it, and any of the Toyotas with similar styling, because of the boxiness. They were, and remain, childish, simplistic, and generally awful. I appreciate R31s a lot more now, but only the JDM 2 door. The ADM 4 door (and any other 4 door, even if they are unique compared to our local one) can eat a bowl of dicks. The Aussie R31 is also forever tarnished by their association with stereotypical bong clutching Aussie R31 owners of the 90s and early 2000s. I think the Nissans of the 70s (other than 120Y/180B/200B) are far superior looking to the 80s cars. The 240K era Skylines are boss. The same is broadly true of Toyotas. Hondas don't ever register in my thinking, from any era. Mitsus are all horrid shitboxen in any era, and so also don't register. Subarus are always awful, ditto. Daihatsus and Suzukis also don't generally register. They are all invisible. I think the SW20 MR2 looks fiddly. The 3000GT/GTO is like that but way worse. Too many silly plastic barnacles and fiddly gimmicks ruined what could have been a really nice base shape. Kinda-sorta looks like a big heavy ST165 Celica coupe (and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing). I think the 180SX is dreadfully bland. It's not bad looking. But it has no excitement to it at all. It's just a liftback coupe thing with no interest in its lines, and bad graphical elements (ie wide expanses of taillight plastic on the rear garnish). The S13 Silvia is a little better - getting closer to R32 shapes. But still....bland. S14? Nope. Don't love it. S15...a little better. Probably a lot better, actually. Benefits from not being like a shrunk in the wash R34 (where the S13 was a shrunk in the wash R32 and the S14 looked like a Pulsar or something else from the stable on Nissan mid 90s horrors). The Z32 was hot as f**k when it came out but hasn't aged as well as the A80. Keep in mind that I think the R33 is the most disgusting looking thing - and out of all the previous cars mentioned is objectively closest to my precious R32. It's just....real bad, almost everywhere you look. And that is down to the majority of what was designed in the 90s being shit. All Nissans from that era look like shit. Most other brands ditto. In that context, the FD absolutely stands out as being by far the best looking car, for reasons already discussed. Going behind the aesthetics, the suspension alone makes it better than almost any other car.  
    • If they just called it the "Mazda Tiffany", it would have been spot on.
×
×
  • Create New...