Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Lol budget option:

NZ steampipe manifold < 400

Kando T67 w/billet wheel <1000 (comes with the bloody lines, v band ring and gaskets)

Tial 44

You should get *close* to the marker and have spent less than the outlay of a fancy turbo or manifold alone lol.

Is that as budget as your thinking?

Lol budget option:

NZ steampipe manifold < 400

Kando T67 w/billet wheel <1000 (comes with the bloody lines, v band ring and gaskets)

Tial 44

You should get *close* to the marker and have spent less than the outlay of a fancy turbo or manifold alone lol.

Is that as budget as your thinking?

A bit under actually!

Was thinking around $2k.

It will be hard to keep your package under 2k unless you look at a kando and that.

I doubt the difference between a T67 and a 3076 is going to be night and day. I would seriously consider the package I mentioned if you really want to keep costs that low.

Its a nice bit of kit. No kidding.

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/topic/347726-kando-dynamics-turbo/

I found a good test on a comparison of a 3076R, 3582R, HTA 3076R, HTA 3582R and a PTE 5858 last night and bookmarked the link at home, just did a quick google and couldn't find it again but I'll post tonight if I remember...

The general gist was the HTA made tiny bit more power top end and a decent amount better response

Definately interested in this!

http://www.motorgeek.com/viewtopic.php?t=34852

I doubt the difference between a T67 and a 3076 is going to be night and day. I would seriously consider the package I mentioned if you really want to keep costs that low.

Cost vs performance is where the T67 wins, but I'm not convinced that they will be the same in performance - I "got into" the who turbo world when GReddy T67-25G and HKS GT3037 were direct competitors way back when, and generally speaking the HKS unit became something of a hero turbo... power numbers etc were often almost favouring the T67 (which is no doubt the better peak power unit) but in real world terms the HKS (/Garrett) unit tended to produce the quicker car, even in drag racing. Would love to drive the same car back to back with one of each though, to be sure as SimonR32s results look very very decent.

So in my head, in terms of ultimate "overall" performance at the level Bri73y is asking for I think its "middle of the road" of his options but easily the #1 in terms of cost, in a 1150kg car its lower response etc may well not be a problem at all.

The turbo I suspect FullRace will recommend (S200SX 7670) would be a very good performer, probably not the most expensive option but would be a good option - maybe more cost effective if not purchased as a full kit from FP. If cards could be played right in terms of fabrication etc I wouldn't be surprised if its the best value vs money, though results are thin on the ground so thats assuming the few positive results out there are realistic - I have definitely seen footage of a track EVO running one and it looked very impressive.

FP GT3076R HTA is still my favourite "ignoring cost" option, for if I were building a similar fast fun car to drive.

Once I get mine tuned with the poncams we will be able to have an almost direct comparison between a Kinugawa T67 and GT3076R as one with the exact same engine set up as mine (apart from the turbo) was tuned a few weeks ago :)

At the moment mine makes more top end (with more boost) but looses about 200-300rpm down low

Stay tuned, few weeks away from the tune being done

Edited by SimonR32

Nice, will be cool to see :) Same manifolds etc?

The reason I'd love to drive one myself is response, there was some interesting testing between two equivalent cars recently (stock engine, similar boost, similar weight) - one running a externally gated .63a/r GT3582R and the other an internally gated .82a/r GT3076R, both cars had almost identical spool on the dyno but the GT3582R setup made 20kw more in the top end. Real world testing proved the GT3076R car to be consistantly quicker (albeit not by a huge amount, just consistantly). Very interesting result, actually - had been one I'd always been interested to see as those two turbo combinations are a comparison which have come up in previous conversations I've been in, but all hypothetically.

Not idea if the same would be the case with a T67, ever experienced one myself - but I'd expect it to sit somewhere between a GT30R and GT35R in response.

Once I get mine tuned with the poncams we will be able to have an almost direct comparison between a Kinugawa T67 and GT3076R as one with the exact same engine set up as mine (apart from the turbo) was tuned a few weeks ago :)

At the moment mine makes more top end (with more boost) but looses about 200-300rpm down low

Stay tuned, few weeks away from the tune being done

Looking forward to this!!! Mine should go a tune next week too so there will be another 3076 to compare too but mine is likely to run a lower boost level that you guys....

Lith I did say the difference wouldnt be night and day, i dont doubt that the 3037 would be the better unit spool wise but for the price difference can you really complain?

Also re your last post, ive always said similar and even Stao has been saying the same about his highflow vs SS1PU. He notes that while they might plot the same on the dyno (at a given boost level) the SS1PU shines in its on road delivery. Like Ive always said power is one thing but delivery is king. This reminds me that you need to reply to my PM you slack ass, I wont be on MSN for a while as im running a pretty demanding regime at the minute.

Simon, so your saying that a poncammed 3037 (3076R) is plotting 300rpm better than your uncammed T67? Thats pretty awesome. Im keen to see the result once yours is cammed up (not to take away from my delivery is king comment LOL).

Yet I would like to see a 3037 run a bloody 11.03 :P

Nice, will be cool to see :) Same manifolds etc?

The reason I'd love to drive one myself is response, there was some interesting testing between two equivalent cars recently (stock engine, similar boost, similar weight) - one running a externally gated .63a/r GT3582R and the other an internally gated .82a/r GT3076R, both cars had almost identical spool on the dyno but the GT3582R setup made 20kw more in the top end. Real world testing proved the GT3076R car to be consistantly quicker (albeit not by a huge amount, just consistantly). Very interesting result, actually - had been one I'd always been interested to see as those two turbo combinations are a comparison which have come up in previous conversations I've been in, but all hypothetically.

Not idea if the same would be the case with a T67, ever experienced one myself - but I'd expect it to sit somewhere between a GT30R and GT35R in response.

Yes, both 6boobs manifolds

It's between a GT3076R and GT3582R but much closer to the GT3076R

Lith I did say the difference wouldnt be night and day, i dont doubt that the 3037 would be the better unit spool wise but for the price difference can you really complain?

Also re your last post, ive always said similar and even Stao has been saying the same about his highflow vs SS1PU. He notes that while they might plot the same on the dyno (at a given boost level) the SS1PU shines in its on road delivery. Like Ive always said power is one thing but delivery is king. This reminds me that you need to reply to my PM you slack ass, I wont be on MSN for a while as im running a pretty demanding regime at the minute.

Simon, so your saying that a poncammed 3037 (3076R) is plotting 300rpm better than your uncammed T67? Thats pretty awesome. Im keen to see the result once yours is cammed up (not to take away from my delivery is king comment LOL).

Yet I would like to see a 3037 run a bloody 11.03 :P

Yes, they overlayed the plots the other day to compare then said they were about 300rpm difference. As I said I'll get a proper comparison printed once mine is tuned with poncams/vipec

Yet I would like to see a 3037 run a bloody 11.03 :P

10.4 out of a full street car close enough? It did 11 flat at around 130mph on pump gas, too....

It's between a GT3076R and GT3582R but much closer to the GT3076R

Sweet, yeah thought that might be the case :)

As I said I'll get a proper comparison printed once mine is tuned with poncams/vipec

Very interested to see how that goes!

Lol budget option:

NZ steampipe manifold < 400

Kando T67 w/billet wheel <1000 (comes with the bloody lines, v band ring and gaskets)

Tial 44

That is a huge unknown. May be a good thing but I have not read of a single result of their billet wheels.

Once I get mine tuned with the poncams we will be able to have an almost direct comparison between a Kinugawa T67 ... Stay tuned, few weeks away from the tune being done

As others have said. Will be interesting. If you get the car tuned in NSW/WA you will gain response and power. Get it tuned in Vic you will lose response and make a handful more kws....I got no explanation for the vast differences people experience with cams other then it must be a lot to do with cams gears and how tuners tune?!?!?!

Haha billet is lighter because u can decrease the thickness more than the difference in density between cast and billet.

Some are heavier because they have 7/7 blades instead of 6/6 but they'll handle high boost more efficiently and generally flow more for same size.

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 everyone always seems to refer to them as S13 wheels however they came on R32 Skyline, A31 Cefiro, C33 Laurel etc., and also came polished diamond cut or painted depending on the model. Congrats on your GTS purchase! I'd personally leave it NA.
    • In this thing about this 100% renewal energy stuff I hear no one really talking about anything other than power and fuel really Power and fuel, whilst being a huge part of how we use the billion year old Dinosaur juices, are only 2, of the probably thousands of things that we need to use it for in the chemicals industries for making nearly everything we use nowadays I'm all for a clean planet, but if we want to continue to have all the day to day appliances and stuff that we rely on everyday we will still need fossil fuels Whilst I do love science, and how it can bring innovation, there's really a limit to how far it can go in relation to "going green" As for EV's, unless your charging of your own solar panels, it isn't helping the environment when you consider the the batteries, the mining processes required,  the manufacturing process required, and how long a batteries (read: the vehicle) lasts long term If I was supreme dictator of the world, I would ban the use of sugar for fizzy drinks and food additives and use that for ethanol manufacturing, petrol engines would be happier, and people would be alot healthier  Disclaimer: Whiskey manufacturing would still be required, so says the supreme dictator of the world Same same for all the vegetable oils that get pumped into all our food, use that for bio diesel Disclaimer: the supreme dictator would still require olive oil to dip his bread in This would take some of heat off the use of the use of fossil fuels which are required for everything we use, unless you want to go back to pre 1800 for heat and power, or the early 1900's for plastics and every thing else that has come from cracking ethylene  Would I be a fair and just dictator, nope, and I would probably be assassinated within my first few months, but would my cunning plan work, maybe, for a while, maybe not Meh, in the end in an over opinionated mildly educated arsehole typing out my vomit on my mobile phone, which wouldn't be possible without fossil fuels And if your into conspiracies, we only need the fossil fuels to last until a meteor hits, or thermonuclear annihilation, that would definitely fix our need for fossil fuels for manufacturing and power issues for quite some time  Meh, time for this boomer to cook his lunch on his electric stove and then maybe go for a drive in my petrol car, for fun    
    • It really helps that light duty vehicles have absolutely appalling average efficiency due to poor average load. Like 25% average brake thermal efficiency when peak is somewhere around 38% these days. So even a 60% BTE stationary natural gas plant + transmission and charging losses still doing much better with an EV than conventional ICE. And that's before we get into renewables or "low carbon nonrenewable" nuclear which makes it a no-brainer, basically. In commercial aircraft or heavy duty diesel pulling some ridiculous amount of weight across a continent the numbers are much more difficult to make work. I honestly think in 5-10 years we will still be seeing something like the Achates opposed piston diesels in most semi trucks running on a blend of renewable/biodiesel. Applications where the energy density of diesel is just too critical to compromise. CARB is running trials of those engines right now to evaluate in real world drayage ops, probably because they're noticing that the numbers just don't work for electrification unless our plan is to make glorified electric trains with high voltage wires running along every major highway and only a token amount of battery to make it 30 miles or something like that after detaching. Transport emissions is not insignificant especially in the US, but yes there's a lot of industrial processes that also need to be decarbonized. I agree the scale of the problem is pretty insane but EDF managed to generate ~360 TWh from their nuclear reactors last year and this is with decades of underinvestment after the initial big push in the 70s and 80s. I don't think the frame of reference should be solar-limited. France is not exactly a big country either. Maybe it doesn't work everywhere, but it doesn't have to either. We just can't live off of fracking forever and expect things to be ok.
    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
×
×
  • Create New...