Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About Blue

  • Rank
    Rank: RB20DET
  • Birthday 07/09/1971

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Car(s)
    R31 coupe
  • Real Name

Recent Profile Visitors

2,221 profile views
  1. Managed to track down some info via GCG, not looking great for the GT30 to GT28 adapter idea, it would have to be impractically long to have a taper I could accept. The sides would have to converge at nearly 30 degrees (The two sides together) to put the turbo in an acceptable location. I was hoping not to spend the money but a TiAL housing and flange might be the go, single size between GT28 and GT30/35 for future use.
  2. I was hoping there for a minute, but copy pasting that result gets me much the same as I have been getting, loads of pictures, no actual dimensions, at least not of the V band housings, not the ones I am looking for anyway. Time for some emails to suppliers like GCG I think.
  3. Quick background, I have been running a GT2860RS on my RB20DET for years and for my purposes I have been happy with it, but the time came to replace it and I have gone with a GTX2860R Gen2 to hopefully get what amounts to just a bit more of the same with the better compressor, I was basically just about at the choke line in places. I tracked down a T3 flanged internal gate housing for it as I was sick of the crappy T3 to T25 adapter I had on it. The two part designs are just rubbish. The opportunity knocks to change to a tubular manifold and external gate (I have not even started it up with the new turbo on it yet) and I want to keep it relatively future proof as whenever the 20 breaks or wears out (Been waiting ten years) I would fit a 25, or build a 30 based engine as I have a good 30E block in the shed. I am looking at manifolds, with 6Boost being just one of course but one that is generally known to fit. The issue is deciding on what flange to run. At the cost of a much dearer turbine housing I could whack the TiAL housing that suits this turbo on as they run the same V band flange for the GT28/30/35 housings, but when I change to a bigger turbo I am up for another expensive housing. The Garret V band is a cheaper housing but the flanges are different between GT28 and GT30/35, meaning if I fit one of them I am possibly down for a new flange being fitted to the manifold later. The question for the gurus is. Does anyone have a definitive drawing that shows the GT28 and GT30 B band flange inside diameters? I have not had any luck so far googling for drawings. If it is not too different so that I could not make a quite short adapter while having a decent taper on the ID, I could get a manifold with the GT30 flange on it and have a GT30 to GT28 V band adapter spun up, meaning two V band clamps but later when a bigger turbo is required I just remove and bin the adapter. TL; DR, anyone got proper drawings or measurements of a Garrett GT30 versus GT28 turbine inlet V band flange?
  4. I reckon 40K puts it perilously close to a brand new Zed, and despite them getting pretty long in the tooth, I know which one I would rather sit in.
  5. I will go check it out on FB. There is no real pressure on it at the moment, I am not going to do much on the car over Christmas.
  6. I am guessing after a good few days with no response that I am on my own on this one. Pity, but it makes the money on a HPX look like the better option. When I am am aiming to nail down one known good data point in the setup to swing a number of tables off it makes no sense to go guessing. I am betting no Nissan dealer is going to be very keen on letting me take the inlet apart on an R35 to find out for myself 😥
  7. OK, I have spent half an hour trawling search results without concluding anything. Is anyone able to definitively state the stock MAF pipe diameter for an R35? I am looking at using a single R35 MAF (I assume they have one for each bank, never looked) in another application altogether. It may not even end up used in the final tune of my car. My ECU has a table of voltage versus grams/sec airflow for a MAF which I like a lot better than at least the early Nistune/Nissan table of MAF percentage that has been kludged back to a HP figure not an air mass, but I have not yet found the pipe diameter Nissan used to validate the data for my setup. Another option would be a HPX MAF as they provide a spreadsheet to scale the output to any pipe diameter you like with the output in various formats, but they cost maybe 50% more than the R35 unit. I am looking at it for my HR31 track car, which has an Emtron KV8 ECU. I am looking at it for light load use in the tune, blended out to speed density at higher loads, but also to validate data and refine a table related to throttle body mass flow calculations used elsewhere in the ECU and potentially for some turbo dynamics stuff (Data nerd here) Fundamental to the lot is knowing what diameter pipe Nissan used so that the MAF table in my ECU matches reality. If I cant define that I will be better off spending the extra hundred bucks or so for a HPX and be done with it.
  8. More or less my thoughts. Guess I will see if I can clock the compressor housing where I would like to and still get a favorable angle on the actuator rod.
  9. Question for those in the know. I have been running through a long electronics upgrade on my track car over the last couple of years. I am finally getting near the end of the tunnel. One thing I am looking at doing as part of all this is re clocking the compressor housing on my car (GT2860RS turbo) I have never been all that happy with proximity of the discharge to the exhaust manifold. The question for me is, is the angle made between the actuator rod and wastegate arm all that critical? I have seen some on quite an angle but to me is it asking for inconsistent operation as the effective mechanical advantage of the actuator changes through it's stroke. I can get it reasonably straight but not quite as straight as it is currently or the discharge is going to hit the strut tower. I am hoping to be able to get it to form more or less a right angle when closed, but am I being unnecessarily fussy? Before anyone gets worried about changing the geometry on anything stock'ish. it is a track only car and will be running closed loop boost control and everything else dealing with boost control will be new so it will all be set up from scratch, one of the things I hope to do is to be able to run a wider range of boost pressures with a two port actuator and three port solenoid (Previously pegged at 18PSI with a basic boost tee as the old ECU was really bad at boost control)
  10. And for CAMS sanctioned motorsport at least, unless it is set up as an oil separator returning to the engine via PCV applied to one rocker breather and the bottom of the can to the other rather than a catch can (So manifold vacuum when off throttle draws oil back in via the breather) any RB turbo will need at least 3L capacity. I am just about to build a new one for my HR31 and will be making it about 3.5L with an oil return to the sump and a proper filter on the outlet, one track I run at makes the 20DET hoist a lot of oil out. Hard braking followed by a very hard right hander and immediate full power twice in a lap, it spits out up to 500ml in a handful of laps, take it to Phillip Island and it did not put that much in the can over 500KM. You are not particularly likely to get pinned for it being to small at most track days but who needs to give a grumpy scrutineer something easy to knock you back for.
  11. Biggest thing I would say would be to download the software for each of your candidates and see how you like working with it.
  12. The only two I have seen are the MoTeC dashes and the AIM ones. Both are a pretty polished product. OBD is good for display but not apparently much chop for high value logging due to update rates, if the system has CAN in the background and there is any chance of sniffing out the CAN messages later to pick stuff up at much higher rates then IMO the MoTeC dashes have a much easier interface for building CAN templates to hoover up whatever data you can get your hands on. There are undoubtedly others but I don't have any experience with them, I would just stay away from Racepak, I think the IQ3 is built too lightly and is getting old, the software is ancient, the dashes are not all that flexible configuration wise and to be plain, the proprietary Vnet concept shits me up the wall.
  13. Yeah, per a post above, a mate has an AIM dash, he is having issues with data not being shown but if you are doing something over CAN with a known message set that should be a non issue, or direct inputs (DO they have AV and digital inputs?) Aside from that it is a nice looking unit. Except for the money stacking up a bit too much I have considered a handful of AIM smarty cams using their bridge to enable camera start/stop with the logger running signal from my C127. My budget just does not stretch to the MoTeC cam systems, particularly as I would want more than one. I currently have a kludged setup where the logger status triggers an aux output on my dash which controls a 12V relay which turns on power to my camera, that is a Replay XD and is configured to power up and start recording when external power goes on and stop/power down after it goes off, saves forgetting to start and stop it! The bugger is it is the only camera I have found that will do that (Other than off the shelf dash cams which will probably have rolling shutter effect from hell!) and having tested the water with one and found it works how I wanted it seems that Replay have gone belly up and I have had no joy getting any more.
  14. I would not be too concerned about the lack of an MT forum. Take a look at the Racepak forums for an example why. Loads and loads of questions posted, most of which never get a response of any sort. IMO they would do better to close the forum down as it detracts from their reputation to have people asking for information and generally getting none. If you trawl back enough you can find one of the Racepak guys telling a poster that the forum is intended to be a USER forum and that Racepak don't actively monitor it nor feel any compelling reason to help the users in that way (That last bit being my interpretation) The default response if you get one at all from Racepak is "Call us" which is not a whole lot of good from half the world away. Lack of local support (For any Racepak product repairs Haltech will have to send stuff back to Racepak anyway) was one of the bigger reasons I sold mine.
  15. I would put up a different perspective (Especially if you are not generally locking them up) Firstly, what they have posted above, shoes. Race boots are not all that costly, buy some if you can afford to. They really do make a difference, apart from anything else the heels will be rounded where many shoes have a much more square heel and it makes things easier, as well as the softer soles helping with feel. The disadvantage is that the thin and soft soles wear out a lot faster than a pair of runners. Second is more of a comment. I found the Skylines brakes with good pads (HR31 with R33 GT-R Brembo fronts and GTS-T rears) to have far too much initial bite which made them easy to lock up, particularly in the wet, you literally had to be on your toes. I went to a 27mm (I think) master cylinder from a Navara and adjustable bias valve to increase the pedal effort but I still did not like them much. I am in the process of fitting a full pedal box to mine to get rid of the booster completely. I was using Project Mu RC09 pads as one track the car is run at is seriously hard on the stoppers and anything less tended to run out of pad fade wise by the end of a three hot lap sprint and consumes the pads at a silly rate. That is on the RAAF base at Sale and having driven both it is as hard on the brakes as Mallala.
  • Create New...