Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

To put it simply, bigger A/R = more flow and more power but at the cost of response/more lag. A smaller A/R turbine will spool a turbo quicker but at the cost of power. Matching a turbine A/R will most depend on the flow of the engine (size) and power target.

I was thinking of going for the 0.87 :) . Would love to try a 1.12 a/r but maybe 2 laggy but would have nice power, i think :aroused: .

Im no expert but id estimate that the .87 housing would probably suit you the best...the 1.12 would be too big and .69 would strangle top end and probably come on boost to hard.
On a Rb25 with a 0.87 would the spoolup will be 2 quick or is the 1.12 better so its a big laggier and more power?

Umm.. RB25? going by your sig

* RB30DET on its way

So why even think about an RB25? Or are you dreaming of the RB30?

If u want good power and response then piss off the 1970's TO4E and get a twin ball beaing turbo. As an example my GT30 with 0.82 a/r rear power comes on hard at around 4000rpm (1 bar).

:werd:

mine comes in at like 4200... pretty much the same as you Denham.

love it :)

Response and lag depend on alot of things.

Dont be too quick to think a BB turbo will outperform a bush bearing. Point in note T518Z, which can make 1 bar under 3500rpm on a 2L bottom end (SR20). Older bush bearing turbos though - just dont expect anywhere near the response as from a newer turbo.

With a GT30, I am getting 1.2bar at 4000rpm with 0.87 housing. It was not always that good, I had to sort out my exhaust and a few other bits (eg PCV valve) to get it there. I have since been told that by a Japanese mechanic and pro D1 driver, that he believes the turbo is capable of coming on boost earlier, and making more power than it does. He puts this down to tune.

Tune can make a huge difference to how a turbo comes on. Judd has bought a Jap trained mechanic over to do some tuning, and in one case, brought boost on 800 odd rpm earlier by tweaking the ecu, with a drop in detonation. Tuning can make or brake a combination, as can any other weak link in the chain.

The Jap mechanic I spoke to said he likes to tune around 11 AF ratios, and use timing to get response. This seems to be very different to what most seem to do in Aust (that I have had experience with). They tune for top power, at around 12 AF ratios.

I originally started with a 0.61 turbine AR, this was way too small for the street and resulted on boost coming in so hard that the car would step sideways at around 3000rpm even with light throttle, in 4th gear. Not good when you are travelling at 100kph in traffic.

As a result I could only use low (1 bar) boost on the street, and a tune of around 256rwkw. Now with a 0.87, it is possible to use the right foot to control boost, so I can run a tune with over 300rwkw on the street, lag is only marginally higher, and I believe it will get lower with the right tune, but still enable control with the right foot.

I am using a 40mm wastegate, and it was fine with the 0.61 housing, as it is with the 0.87.

If you are going to the 3L bottom end, I beleive the 0.87 would be too small, closer to 1.0 would be my choice.

Ive bought a 1.12 housing because it would suit the 3.0L later down the track because its a project, but as its going on the rb25 very shortly and i dont want monster lag. Therefore i thought a smaller wastegate would help reduce this lag.

As for the TO4E, It was rebuilt with a 66mm compressor wheel. It needs to be balanced before put on as the previous company did a shit job. I do have the original housing of 0.69 but i think it would be 2 powerful. :wassup:

The 3L wont be ready until a couple of months because its a slow project build and money counts. The 3L is real as ive got the short block all prepared for the head and everything else. Waiting to purchase pistons so thats gona cost a bit, well thats another story.

Oh yeh tunning plays a big part of performance and response but also purchasing the correct size wastegate and manifold helps also :) Well im gona have a HKS To4 tunned manifold and not sure on the wastegate.

Hey what's the specs for your compressor housing?

so its got a 66mm T04 compressor wheel (what trim?)

what's the A/R of the compressor housing?

is there some sort of rule to choosing a compressor housing when you've decided on the specs for turbine housing?

I think the turbo has a T6 front with a T4 end.

I dont know details on the turbo as it was a dudd turbo that needs fixing so all i know is that its a 60 or 66mm compressor wheel. :)

Hey what's the specs for your compressor housing?

so its got a 66mm T04 compressor wheel (what trim?)

what's the A/R of the compressor housing?

is there some sort of rule to choosing a compressor housing when you've decided on the specs for turbine housing?

If it's the T66 wheel (66mm) then it's pretty damn good - the comp map for that blade is awesome. Should be good for at least 700hp. But to flow that much you're going to need the rest of the support systems, and spec the turbine end not to be too restrictive.

hmm sorry to drag off topic, but my mate has a VL turbo, which has most of the good bits in it and namely a GCG hi flow turbo (T3/4 hybrid i am guessing), not long after he bought the car the turbo carked it due to a crimped oil feed line. so he ordered a new turbo from GCG, specs not exactly known.

put it on ran it at the drags and then had another problem with the car... unrelated. after fixing that problem, he decided that the exhaust a/r was too small and sent it back to GCG. after they had it a month it was sent back and told doesn't need too be done.

2 weeks ago car was dyno tuned and the best possible run was 204rwkw. now he (and i) were expecting a bit more than this. as it is not laggy at all, and boosts quite quickly

why would GCG refuse to do this?

it is getting sent back there one more time to get DONE and if they refuse, TUFF!!!

Ive bought a 1.12 housing because it would suit the 3.0L later down the track because its a project, but as its going on the rb25 very shortly and i dont want monster lag. Therefore i thought a smaller wastegate would help reduce this lag.  

nag, wastegate dont affect lag. it only opens as per the boost your running.

how well it holds boost depends on the size and how much it opens etc.

204rwkw is bugger all on a vl when you consider the stocker turbo will make 180rwkw.

a stocker T3 hi-flow (different wheel on comp/exhaust) makes 230rwkw on average. thats with the stock housings just machined a bit

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

    • Very decent bit of kit. Definitely black it out I reckon.  
    • Because people who want that are buying euros. The people with the money to buy the aftermarket heads and blocks aren’t interested in efficiency or making -7 power, they’re making well over 1,000hp and pretty much only drive them at full throttle  best way to way make money is know your customer base and what they want and don’t spend money making things they don’t want. 
    • It's not, but it does feel like a bit of a missed opportunity regardless. For example, what if the cylinder head was redesigned to fit a GDI fuel system? It's worth like two full points of compression ratio when looking at modern GDI turbo vs PFI turbo. I'm pretty reliably surprised at how much less turbo it takes to make similar power out of a modern engine vs something like an RB26. Something with roughly the same dimensions as a -7 on an S55 is making absolutely silly power numbers compared to an RB26. I know there's a ton of power loss from things like high tension rings, high viscosity oil, clutch fan, AWD standby loss, etc but it's something like 700 whp in an F80 M3 vs 400 whp in an R33 GTR. The stock TF035HL4W turbos in an F80 M3 are really rather dinky little things and that's enough to get 400 whp at 18 psi. This just seems unwise no? I thought the general approach is if you aren't knock limited the MFB50 should be held constant through the RPM range. So more timing with RPM, but less timing with more cylinder filling. A VE-based table should accordingly inverse the VE curve of the engine.
    • I've seen tunes from big name workshops with cars making in excess of 700kW and one thing that stood out to me, is that noone is bothering with torque management. Everyone is throwing in as much timing as the motor can take for a pull. Sure that yields pretty numbers on a dyno, but it's not keeping these motors together for more than a few squirts down the straight without blowing coolant or head gaskets. If tuners, paid a bit more attention and took timing out in the mid range, managed boost a bit better, you'll probably see less motors grenading. Not to name names, or anything like that, but I've seen a tune, from a pretty wild GT-R from a big name tuner and I was but perplexed on the amount of timing jammed into it. You would have expected a quite a bit less timing at peak torque versus near the limiter, but there was literally 3 degrees of difference. Sure you want to make as much as possible throughout the RPM range, but why? At the expense of blowing motors? Anyhow I think we've gone off topic enough once again lol.
    • Because that’s not what any of them are building these heads or blocks for. It’s to hold over over 1000hp at the wheels without breaking and none of that stuff is required to make power 
×
×
  • Create New...