Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The threaded portion of the hole is about 10mm dia. , the oilway is about 3.0mm dia. and it has two holes in the side of it about 1.2mm dia.

The oil does not feed straight through this restrictor, it comes out the sides, like this......

     Oil In

    3mm

    |  |

    |  |

    |   =   1.2mm Oil Out

    |  |

This is a brand new HKS GT3037 which I purchased recently.

Hi guys, I feel the need to put up a question;

Car 1 is a Fowlcan that revs to 4,000 rpm and has 50 psi oil pressure.

Car 2 is a GTR that revs to 8,000 rpm and has 80 psi oil pressure.

Surely it would illogical to have the same sized oil orifices in a turbo on both engines. The oil flow from the GTR oil pump into the turbo would be almost double. So if the turbo is designed for the Fowlcan, then it will have excessive oil flow and pressure on its seals when used on the GTR. On the other hand, if the turbo is designed for the GTR, then it will have insufficient oil flow and pressure when used on the Fowlcan.

So it would seem logical to me to have all turbos designed for "low" oil pressure engines and use a restrictor if they are to be used on "high" oil presure engines. This would be particularly relevant on Roticeries that have up to 100 psi oil pressure.

What do you think?

I think I am going to get a restrictor since I am running an N1 oil pump.

:)

-4 , 0.8 or 0.9 mm should be ok since Jason's built in one is 1.2 mm - if it was larger than that I would be concerned.

So it would seem logical to me to have all turbos designed for "low" oil pressure engines and use a restrictor if they are to be used on "high" oil presure engines.  This would be particularly relevant on Roticeries that have up to 100 psi oil pressure.

SK;

Does that mean stock GTRs will have restrictors plumbed inline, or are you saying that the restrictor is a modification specifically built into GTR turbos?

SK;Does that mean stock GTRs will have restrictors plumbed inline, or are you saying that the restrictor is a modification specifically built into GTR turbos?

Hi Scooby, the oil flow control issue is for ball bearing, water cooled turbos. :idea:

Hi Scooby, the oil flow control issue is for ball bearing, water cooled turbos. :idea:

My bad, I was implying GTRs such as R34s which I think came standard with bb and water cooling or at least could be specified with N1s that have these features?

Based on JasonO's measurements, and if haven't missunderstood the description, a single restrictor would then have to be < 1.7 mm diameter to be actually restricting anything, based on the surface area of two 1.2 mm holes.

Sydneykid, I cant see anythign wrong with your logic. So are you assuming that the GT's would be designed for a 'low pressure' engine and that RB's may need the restrictor? Do you run one on your cars with your custom turbo setups? Does anyone have published Garrett specs on the oil requirement of GT series turbos?

The one I am getting is 0.8 mm.

After explaining my situation to one of the turbo shops, they agreed that I do infact need a restrictor as I have a high revving engine with a high volume oil pump.

Hopefully I will get the restrictor tomorrow so I can test it at WSID on Saturday.

I'll either be happy that I have no white smoke on decelaration now

OR

I'll have a lunched turbo..........

My bad, I was implying GTRs such as R34s which I think came standard with bb and water cooling or at least could be specified with N1s that have these features?

I thought that might be the case, Scooby. I suspect Nissan would have specified the turbos with the right amount of oil flow. This can be achieved with a restrictor or simply by machining the ports smaller in the first place.

Based on JasonO's measurements, and if haven't missunderstood the description, a single restrictor would then have to  be < 1.7 mm diameter to be actually restricting anything, based on the surface area of two 1.2 mm holes.

Sorry guys, I've double checked the turbo this morning, and found that it only has one hole not two as I described earlier. It's kind of difficult to see.

My original description should have read as follows --

The threaded portion of the hole is about 10mm dia. ,  the oilway is about 3.0mm dia. and it has one hole in the side of it about 1.2mm dia.

The oil does not feed straight through this restrictor, it comes out the sides, like this......

     Oil In

    3mm

    |  |

    |  |

    |   =   1.2mm Oil Out

    |  |

Prolly not Chris - I just want to get rid of the smoke on decelaration - and this is the first and most obvious step in the troubleshooting.

It's not affecting performance - but could affect the turb if the seals are under pressure.

Compare the size of the oil feed vs oil drain. Also look at that cut section, I dont see how its possible to actually have sufficient pressure in the bearing cavity to push past the seals?

I still maintain that you shouldnt run one. As for the comparo i dont think garrett really had falcons in mind when they designed these cores.

I've seen my oil pressure up around 11kg/cm and i dont shoot out seals or have smoke shooting out of my exhaust.

if it was decelerating wouldn't the oil pump be winding down? so it would be more likely to blow smoke on acceleration when oil pressure builds up??? just a thought!!!

  • 4 weeks later...

Reviving this thread now as I have just taken delivery of my restrictor to test the theory.

Problem is - I reckon the restrictor is too restricive just bY looking at it.

The standard one has a hole of about 4mm - the custom one has a hole of about 0.8-0.9mm.

For those guys that are running restrictors with no problem - what size hole are you using ?

So here are some pics. Note the difference to the standard restrictor.

restrictor1.JPG

restrictor2.JPG

restrictor3.JPG

Brendan,

As far as I know, HKS make different turbos for different applications. e.g. An HKS GT2530 for RB25 is *NOT* the same as an HKS GT2530 for an RB26.

Secondly, as seen on Steve's GT3037, it already have a 1.2mm restrictor built into the centre housing, so obviously it was meant for a high oil pressure application.

So if they were to release different turbos, depending on what engine application you have, and taking into account the built-in 1.2mm restrictor on the HKS GT3037, how does that fit in with Sydneykid's "all turbos are built for low oil pressure applications" theory? dunno.gif

Have you looked at the centre housing of your GT3040 Brendan? Perhaps it already has a restrictor like the GT3037?

And white smoke blowing on decel could point to a lot of things, not just over oiling the turbo :D

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

    • Lucky man, who owns it in the family? Any pics? 
    • The engine stuff is Greg Autism to the Max. I contacted Tony Mamo previously from AFR who went off to make his own company to further refine AFR heads. He is a wizard in US LS world. Pretty much the best person on earth who will sell you things he's done weird wizard magic to. The cam spec is not too different. I have a 232/234 .600/603 lift, 114LSA cam currently. The new one is 227/233 .638 .634. The 1.8 ratio roller rockers will effectively push this cam into the ~.670 range. These also get Mamo'ified to be drilled out and tapped to use a 10mm bolt over an 8mm for better stability. This is what lead to the cam being specced. The plan is to run it to 6800. (6600 currently). The Johnson lifters are to maintain proper lift at heavy use which is something the LS7's supposedly fail at and lose a bit of pressure, robbing you of lift at higher RPM. Hollow stem valves for better, well everything, Valve train control. I dunno. Hollow is better. The valves are also not on a standard valve angle. Compression ratio is going from 10.6 to 11.3. The cam is smaller, but also not really... The cam was specced when I generated a chart where I counted the frames of a lap video I had and noted how much of the time in % I spent at what RPM while on track at Sandown. The current cam/heads are a bit mismatched, the standard LS1 heads are the restriction to power, which is why everyone CNC's them to get a pretty solid improvement. Most of the difference between LS1->LS2->LS3 is really just better stock heads. The current cam is falling over about 600rpm earlier than it 'should' given the rest of my current setup. CNC'ing heads closes the gap with regards to heads. Aftermarket heads eliminate the gap and go further. The MMS heads go even further than that, and the heads I have in the box could quite easily be bolted to a 7.0 427ci or 454 and not be any restriction at all. Tony Mamo previously worked with AFR, designed new heads from scratch then eventually founded his own business. There he takes the AFR items and performs further wizardry, CNC'ing them and then manually porting the result. He also ports the FAST102 composite manifold: Before and after There's also an improved racing crank scraper and windage tray. Helps to keep oil in the pan. Supposedly gains 2% power. Tony also ports Melling oil pumps, so you get more oil pressure down low at idle, and the same as what you want up top thanks to a suitable relief spring. There's also the timing chain kit with a Torrington bearing to make sure the cam doesn't have any thrust. Yes I'll post a before and after when it all eventually goes together. It'll probably make 2kw more than a setup that would be $15,000 cheaper :p
    • Because the cars wheels are on blocks, you slide under the car.   Pretty much all the bolts you touched should have been put in, but not fully torque up.   Back them off a turn or two, and then tighten them up from under the car with the wheels sitting on the blocks holding car up in the air.
    • Yes. Imagine you have the car on the ground, and you mine away all the ground under and around it, except for the area directly under each individual wheel. That's exactly how it'd look, except the ground will be what ever you make the bit under each wheel from
    • Yes, if you set the "height" right so that it's basically where it would be when sitting on the wheel. It's actually exactly how I tighten bolts that need to be done that way. However....urethane bushes do NOT need to be done that way. The bush slides on both the inner and outer. It's only rubber bushes that are bonded to the outer that need to be clamped to the crush tube in the "home" position. And my car is so full of sphericals now that I have very few that I need to do properly and I sometimes forget and have to go back and fix it afterwards!
×
×
  • Create New...