Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I don't know of any twin entry T3 , Euro T4 , GT30 turbine housings but the non gated one I see most is the GT32 plain bearin one - search for GT3267 in 0.78 AR .

The only real GT30 TS IW housings I know of are the Evo 10 ones but they have a different mounting flange .

Possibly the best response GT3076R (IMO) would be the 52 comp trim one with a 0.63 AR GT30 turbine housing .

If it were me the 0.63AR with a good smooth up job in the turbine housing and maybe exhaust manifold would be good enough . I dunno about a lot of boost at 7500 but more that enough to be a tractionless pig in a RWD car with the boost turned up .

If you could go inside the engine and fit a tad more capacity ie 26 crank and 1mm over pistons it all helps . I would touch anything under 9.3 to 9.5 static CR and Poncams don't go astray . Then just bolt a 56t GT3076R on with the 0.82 housing and tune the thing properly .

On the cheap , a std freshened up RB30 short and if you could spare the cash higher compression pistons .

My conclusion is that twin scroll systems are either too expensive or too defectable on single turbo Skylines so tried and proven single scrolls and extra cubic inches end up being easier .

A .

If you could go inside the engine and fit a tad more capacity ie 26 crank and 1mm over pistons it all helps . I would touch anything under 9.3 to 9.5 static CR and Poncams don't go astray . Then just bolt a 56t GT3076R on with the 0.82 housing and tune the thing properly .

On the cheap , a std freshened up RB30 short and if you could spare the cash higher compression pistons .

My conclusion is that twin scroll systems are either too expensive or too defectable on single turbo Skylines so tried and proven single scrolls and extra cubic inches end up being easier .

Disco, could you give me your opinion on 8cm to 10cm turbine housing with a 1:1 increase in CR? On an SR.

Am thinking would possibly make for a better driving car than not.

Why dont you just get a Garrett EVO9 replacement twin scroll GT3071 or 3076 with internal gate.

You will find that the 0.76AR TS GT3071 will spool about the same rate as the 0.63 GT3071 but the power will be more - ie closer to the 0.82. Twin scrolls are about broadening the torque curve.

My pick for 280rwkw with the rb25 would be the TS GTX3071 with the 0.73A/R. I would expect that power at 15psi with full boost around the 3000-3200rpm range.

Lol is this a stab in the dark? As that information is also inaccurate. Twinscroll generally makes more midrange and less topend vs openscroll.

Probably the EFR 7064 will fit the bill.....if it ever gets released. The EFR 7670 seems to be between the GT30 and GT35 - so too big for you.

AND you can have either single scroll (T3) or twin scroll (T4) with internal wastegate. No need for external wastegate.

Edited by simpletool

8-10cm housing on what ?

I thing the Garrett GT28 based turbos are the go for SR20s , either the GT2860RS or any but the biggest trim GT2871R . The reason being that they use either a GT25 or GT25 BB turbo std so the GT28 ones go on easily enough .

I'm not really an SR 20 person but if I was it would have the early high inlet port non VCT head and the GTiR four throttle inlet manifold .

A

  • 5 weeks later...

Very weird looking dyno plot, looks more like a torque plot than a power one. Torque must absolutely nose dive after peak boost.

Solid line looks like torque....dotted line is power....albeit in PS so would read lower in KW's.

Edited by juggernaut1

The curve is a lot less steep than some because its not a peaky power delivery ;) It'd read less in kw, but its still at 280ps (208kw) by around 4000rpm and reaches 526ps (390ishkw) which makes for a pretty impressive spread of grunt.

Going by this dyno plot, a GT3582R with an ATP T4 1.06a/r twin scroll turbine housing will more or less hit the magical 200kw by 4000rpm mark on an RB25:

892f45d7.jpg

That is predicted flywheel ps and not wheel ps. So take off a fair whack of power everywhere :thumbsup:

The curve is a lot less steep than some because its not a peaky power delivery ;) It'd read less in kw, but its still at 280ps (208kw) by around 4000rpm and reaches 526ps (390ishkw) which makes for a pretty impressive spread of grunt.

As my above post realistic figures are probably more like 165kw by 4000rpm and 310rwkw :cheers:

That is predicted flywheel ps and not wheel ps. So take off a fair whack of power everywhere :thumbsup:

So it is different from other dyno sheets? Aren't they all predicted hp?

Or do you mean theyve inflated it to give flywheel hp instead of wheel hp? What would be the purpose of that?

So your saying that PS = BHP not WHP? Can't it be either it's just a unit of measure and the graph doesn't say where the power was measured.

PS

This unit (German: Pferdestärke = horse strength) is no longer a statutory unit, but is still commonly used in Europe, South America, Japan and India especially by the automotive and motorcycle industry. It was adopted throughout continental Europe with designations equivalent to the English horsepower, but mathematically different from the British unit.

DIN 66036 defines one horsepower to lift a mass of 75 kilograms within one second against the earth gravitation over a distance of one metre.[10] Similar definitions were already common to the time of James Watt.

The PS was adopted by the Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) and then by the automotive industry throughout most of Europe, under varying names. In 1992, the PS was rendered obsolete by EEC directives, when it was replaced by the kilowatt as the official power measuring unit. It is still in use for commercial and advertising purposes, in addition to the kW rating, as many customers are still not familiar with the use of kilowatts for engines.

Edited by D_Stirls

yes but either way I think you've mixed up the lines. dotted line is power for sure. other line would be boost or possibly torque. it's only hitting 250ps at 4000 RPM which is around 180kw. I agree it's probably at the wheels. it's pretty good but not super awesome.

So it is different from other dyno sheets? Aren't they all predicted hp?

Or do you mean theyve inflated it to give flywheel hp instead of wheel hp? What would be the purpose of that?

If you look at the power axis you will see that it is referred to as S_PS

The "S" represents predicted flywheel. So any Dyno Dynamics graph with S_HP or S_KW etc is predicted power at the flywheel not recorded power at the wheels.

The guys from the UK tend to use it a lot... See below as an example, this is a stock RB25 turbo on a RB25 running 12psi (which would be around 270rwhp normally)

at_the_fly.jpg

yes but either way I think you've mixed up the lines. dotted line is power for sure. other line would be boost or possibly torque. it's only hitting 250ps at 4000 RPM which is around 180kw. I agree it's probably at the wheels. it's pretty good but not super awesome.

Not sure who that is directed at, I knew the dotted line was power.

The 4000rpm line is a bit hard to nail down exactly, but at 4140rpm it looks to me to be sitting at around 294ps (216kw) which is fairly stout in my books.

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

    • Meanwhile, 20+ years ago, I pulled out the 105mm hole saw and went straight down through the inner guard in front of the airbox to get my stormwater pipe cold air intake in. Right behind the two stock holes for the intercooler pipes. Those have no reinforcement (apart from a couple of robust pieces of steel pipe through them!). I feel that the Australian vehicle standards crews put way too much emphasis on "maintaining the crash performance" of cars and not enough consideration of "any crash is a new and wonderful experiment with a random selection of parameters and you will never be able to tell if an extra 80mm hole through some sheet metal caused a significant difference...but if you close your eyes and squint at the whole structure, engage your engineering brain and have a good think about it, you'd have to expect that it would do jack all."
    • You guys are focussing on the wrong part of this post and have headed off on an irrelevant tangent!  Clearly I'm not going to put my most prized physical possession (well it will be once I'm finished it...) on a piece of shit contraption that might fail and crush me or my car!  At no point was that even implied I was trying to buy a butchered P.O.S that some shonky clown had thrown together with a gasless MIG....  Either way I would love to see the build quality of a rotisserie that has failed.  Actually I'd love to see a photo of one that has failed full stop.  Google fails to deliver.  Never happened?? I'll either make one that won't fail or will buy one that wouldn't fail! End Post.....
    • Yeah, if you can't breathe for more than about 2 minutes, you're cooked.
    • Well, all the power should be getting dissipated across the starter motor. Therefore, ideally, the voltage drop across the earth lead should be convincingly close to zero. Certainly you'd want it to be only a volt or so at max, because otherwise that volt doesn't turn up at the starter to do what is required. A car can probably survive a bad enough earth to crank and start with only 9V or so at the starter motor, maybe even a bit less. But you're seeing only 8V at the battery terminals when cranking, so there can't even be that much available over at the starter, which simply won't do. I would have thought that you couldn't pull enough current (with a healthy starter) to make the battery drop to 8V locally. But I was ignoring the possibility that the starter is in fact crook. If it has shorted windings (or maybe the solenoid is borked and shorting to earth) then I guess it could pull a stack of current and not even look like wanting to turn over. So follow the other boys' reccos too. Because they are just as likely at this point.  
    • Depending where the whole gets drilled, and what country/state you're talking about, quite likely not.   Under ole vehicle mod rules in NSW, VSI06 allowed for drilling of holes in "non structural" areas. So you could drill a hole through the inner guard, and not need engineering. You couldn't drill over seams, and it was advised to add extra reinforcing around the hole, as well as something to protect from sharp edges.   Again, it's all about finding the documentation for where the mod is to be done, AND then being able to explain the situation, with the documentation as to why you don't need engineering, with a positive attitude, to any one of the likes eg, police, vehicle inspector, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...