GTScotT

LMAO @ wife using WMI taking kids to school That is all.

There is a minor amount of scoring on one of the rod bearings but it would be expected that a small amount of bearing material would have made it through the filter and done that. No major issue. The FS thread confirms the use of ACL bearings which are harder wearing that the OEM items, so a small amount of foreign body will cause some form of scoring. Remember that bearing material is intended to absorb a small amount of foreign matter and should do so without harming the crank, however hard bearing shells are often needed for high load applications. A way around this is to use softer (OEM spec) bearings on the mains and harder bearings on the rods (IE ACL Race). The intention here is to have some level of material absorption at the main bearings before oil travels to your rod bearings. As the crank is secured at multiple points the bearings take a shared load and the rods are the ones which take more of a beating. I do agree that it appears to be an error in assembly to the crank girdle. What specific error I am unsure, but I would mostly suspect the fasteners as it is uncommon for the tunnel to warp in a motor worthy of rebuild. It is more likely that the fasteners were reused and caused the crank to walk ever so slightly. Remembering also this is a switchable AWD the crank would get a lot of load when the ATTESSA engages, hence the walk if the motor was not built right. A small error in the grand scheme, and easily overlooked when rebuilding a 'running' motor - as many people do.

Just make sure the crank bore is right before you put a new crank in, and DO NOT use ARP studs unless you get it line bored. Get new OEM crank bolts and use the correct torque settings. It might be hard to mic the crank bore with the rods still in there but you should definitely do this if possible. Finding out the journals are out of round once you do a second crank will only be heart breaking. Furthermore, I realised if the crank may have been walking due to the poor tolerances and caused the damage to the oil pump drive. Another reason to consider getting a micrometer on the crank bore and making sure all the journals are right. Again do not use studs unless you are going to get the block line bored. Also, if you buy a brand new crank check the bearing grades and try to get one with all Zero's. This will be a right pain but it will mean aftermarket bearings in 'STD' size will be a good match and gives you good piece of mind. I was blessed with an all zero crank when I built my SR and all tolerances with ACL Race STD size bearings were spot on. With a little finesse you will revive this motor and have a good strong unit.

The list was in no particular order, the comments are where the data is.

There is no mention of line boring or new studs for the crank, so I assume it was simply reused. There is also a lot of wear on the oil pump drive so I doubt the crank ever went to a machinist to be checked or polished. However I would assume the bearings deformed before the crank out of shape. My assumptions would be that the builder simply honed the block and threw in a set of pistons and rods. Then reused the crank bolts which had been over stretched and the torque settings in the FSM were meaningless. So the crank ended up over/under/unevenly torqued and made crank to bearing clearance a little too close for comfort. I have also seen bearings crushed out of round due poor workmanship during the build process. Always look for a built motor to be proven by usage when buying this sort of thing. Never buy a car with a brand new motor unless it comes with warranty from the builder. On the bright side the rods should be fine, so you can probably mic up crank bore with NEW OEM bolts and see if they are within spec. If they are OK a new crank and new bearings will get you rocking. Otherwise you will also be up for a head gasket and potentially rings (if you don't like what you see when you get the pistons out of the block). Good luck.

Always got your back, Lith

If you roll back through this thread you will find a thread about some guy 'back-to-back'ing a range of turbos on some kind of Audi.. Posted by Lith. From memory the test list is as follows: - GT3076 - 3076HTA - GT3582 - 3582HTA - Some PT thing So putting my understanding of those results together with results I have seen elsewhere; the 3582HTA packs the usual 35R punch for outright power but brings response back towards the realms of a garden variety 3076R. Elsewhere I have noted that a 3586 seems to keep things on the '35R' playing field in terms of response but packs a heavier punch with more outright power. So in your case you could make the following generalisations: - 3582HTA = better spool than stock FG turbo, as much power (if not a little extra due to larger comp housing) as BA/F stock turbo - 3586HTA = BA/F stock like spool with more outright power (for the uninitiated following this topic the FG turbo is a 3576R and BA/F is a 3582R, both with .50ar comp housing) I hope that helps.

They are only going to order it on your behalf, and then tack on their tax. He is just a small outfit that runs his own website, too. So there is no real re-seller buying security. IMHO You should organise your own purchase and establish the relationship with FP direct. That way you can get the support you need and don't need to worry if your re-seller won't be operating next week.

As above, theories are correct. The EBC is only a cheapy, too. I have one I am going to install soon and I do not expect it to do that great a job of holding boost. Now that the mixtures have changed the EBC accounts for a different result. Try disconnecting the EBC and just running actuator pressure, see if it then holds stable

Stao do you mean to say that this core was tested back to back with a 35R and it was found to be 400rpm laggier OR was the genuine 35R laggier?

+1 pump 98 is more of a restriction than the intake manifold is. Plus I do not believe changing the intake manifold will yield a worthwhile result on a GTX3076R. I think OP is doing quite well already.

There are other tell tale signs of poor injector quality. Consistency in the mixture when going from WOT to cruise and the burn across the plugs mean a lot. I run the Five O motorsports injectors which are a Jecs injector rebuilt to whatever size you buy it as. Unigroup gave me the lecture before I took the car in but everything turned out mickey mouse. I have not seen a better burn across a set of plugs. Idle quality and economy are all up there too, but they look exactly like the ones posted above (except the pintle caps). They even have a number engraved (yet I believe mine have a serial number engraved so you know which one matches what on the flow report). Or it could be a 3 digit CC reading, I can't remember. Anywho, thus my curiosity. These could be SRDE injectors backyarded like you said.

Fair enough. I am just trying to understand the message you are wanting to convey... Should we just be avoiding modified injectors in general or is there a particular injector mob producing these? I am running a modified injector which looks just like what you have posted, but they work a treat. So I am curious what you have got there.

What injectors are these?

If you want a simpler option you should seriously look at a hypergear instead. He can highflow your stock turbo for a similar price to the above and it is a knock performer. Bolt it back on and get it tuned, no worries.

This.

Am unsure if the sheer efficiency of these turbos will mean the 4L motor maxes it out super early (caps power at a low rpm but spools mega quick) or if their said efficiency will mean it can cope.. Perhaps the fact they can cope with 5 bar PR will mean the later... Unsure. I think HG has also done some XR6 stuff, maybe ask him for a link to some results by PM. (if serious about the small upgrade/highflow path)

Unless you are ordering this as a 'highflow' alternative to slot into the OEM housing I would definitely be looking at something bigger. Even their 3786 I would say is a better option... Not to go back on the said theme of going 'bigger' but I am sure you could get a local turbo builder to reprofile the OEM housing to accommodate the GT37 turbine, too. To me I see the barra as wanting a larger hotside than it has a compressor, so if to pick from a 3582 or 3586 logically my theory would say to pick the 3582... BUT results have indicated the 3582HTA packs the usual 3582 punch but sports response closer to that of a garden variety 3076R. So... It seems like you want a smallish upgrade, but personally I don't think those turbos are good options for the barra. Maybe Lith can chime in and push a super 94 LOL?? Now that would be an interesting upgrade

I asked FP this question about a year ago and did not get a direct answer. However, they did say the core is an off the shelf GT item and will be the same as what is found in a normal GT3076R. Thus... Expect it to be a plastic cage.

I saw a SWB patrol with a stock RB25 the other day, I'd never seen someone 3 wheel for such a long distance before lol Should be fun

They have the capability to f*ck your motor when they let go. I believe 260kw puts them in the red, so either enjoy your GTR with its catback exhaust and pod filters or put your hand in your pocket (whichever way you decide to go).

I think I misread. Am quite ill in a few ways lol disregard.

Glad to see we agree. I was not implying the VET head alone is all the difference, but the technology implemented in that cylinder head is clearly a winner. That means both the factory VET side of things and the work the said firms have put towards it. Lith when I look at those graphs I still see that the RB28 you posted is behind. I typically look for the point where the incline starts to nose over and I consider that to be the point where the motor has hit its threshold. The said VET is hitting that point at 4,700 whereas the RB28 you posted is 5100 on one of the turbos and 5500 on the other. Obviously there are only hundreds of RPM in it for vastly older tech turbos but I think it notable to consider the big difference in capacity between the two motors. Plus, my comments were actually specific to the two results shown rather than general. I am more than confident that we can find a VET result which is shadowed by an RB.

Interesting to note the SR22VET is superior on all accounts. Its over half a litre smaller. It goes to show that cylinder head technology pays out a lot more than cubes.

I wonder if that is reaching the potential of the turbine wheel or if there just isn't that much between the 64 and 67mm compressors?