Nismo 3.2ish

I do not mind 20 pages referring to other turbos, it would be totally boring if there were no comparisons on threads like this. I am sure Lith enjoys the banter , well maybe , lol ? It would be more interesting if there was more input from the 8374 side, back to back Dynos or whatever on cars that have made direct changes from other turbos to the BW8374 or any EFR turbo for comparisons. The only thing I know, I was in Bretts R and it was great down low and the transient response was bang on, Paul and Micko have been in Niks R and were very impressed how the car went , these blokes are speed lovers and have there own special cars and do not get spotters fee for liking the 8374s. I do find it strange when someone makes statements about something they have no first hand knowledge of and can only guess what it is like. Even the short time I have played with my R34 I know the top power readings and how a car drives are 2 different things. My first changes only gave me 7KW more but you could drive the car around town, even have 3 passengers and take off from park up hill without launching the heap of shit ! In the new year I might have a back to back on the PT 6266CEA Gen2 Vs BW8374 and will get as much info as I can to post. I don't know what you blokes think but when I go to look at the activities and have to go through every Farken post, drives me mad and I have stopped reading the activity threads/posts, hate it!!!!!!!

Getting 800awkw + and not laggy around town, that sounds special. Nearly twice the power as mine and I have 3.2 , a smallish 6266 and a Vcam to get it going, I know I can change the turbo and injectors to get top end, but what for as I will loose it where I want it With that top end and the turbo you would need to get 1150BHP, I would have thought it would not get full boost until 6000rpm + , under 4000rpm Looking forward to see how mine goes with the EFR but I know I will not get anymore up top and do not care, even dropping a few KWs is OK with me, shit, it is a handful as it is Like to see those specs if you get the permission to post them

What Precision Turbo was it, something like the 6870 Gen2, going hard at 4000rpm ? thats sounds mad for a street car

Just a little Super Glue Geoff and poke it back in Do the broken bits end up in the donk ??

It just goes to show you, how can you believe the manufactures? I have a 6266 CEA Gen2 , rated at 800BHP and my tuner said it is close to maxed at 461KW, so about 45kw left in it going off the manufacturer. So your 552kw is 740whp and 852BHP on the 6262CEA , about 150BHP over the suggested ratings by the manufacture, that is great , so going on that I should get close to 950BHP + on the 6266CEA Gen2 Maybe my 3.2Lt donk has something to do with it not being able to get to the BHP levels you have achieved on a smaller turbo ?? I was also told I will only get around the same KWs with the 8374 if I put it on, but better response, YEAH!

Hi Allan , good to get someone elses input to this that knows what he wants, I have a 6266 , but thinking of going to the 8374 to help get it a bit more snappy low end. Happy with keeping the psi around 25 on E85 as it gives me everything I need. It is what the individual wants from his ride that matters. I just listen to like minded people to get there

Your brothers 6262 must be close to maxed @ 460kw , they are rated at 675BHP or the CEA at 705BHP , but who knows just how much they can do?? Look forward to see the results

I think the 6262 is only rated at 675 BHP, the CEA 705BHP I have the 6266 CEA Gen 2, rated at 800BHP and the EFR 8374 is about the same top end 800BHP but from I can work out after ridding in Bretts R the 8374 is sharper up to 3500rpm ish

THIS ^^^^^ By the time he gets it back it will be too fast for him to handle in his old age. From someone that knows,lol

Bastard!

Yes Dan it was all good and another BBQ would not go astray I think Paul gets a spotters fee from Borg Waner now

No Worries mate, thought thats what you meant, Phew You are right and it is great to get it done and dusted. Are you doing much driving ATM ?

Hi James Good to have this sorted and the blame clearly pointed to the builder, after all the BS it feels good for a car owner to have a win. BUT even though it was a win, I am out a lot of money because of the faulty workmanship and I will never get it back. I believe the builder was let off too easily and should have paid for most of the repair costs, I did nothing wrong. Mmmm , EFR8374, after being in Bretts 34 and getting feedback from the boys after driving Niks car, I might have to do it , but I would like to drive a car like Niks to see how it feels , dynos do not seem to capture the bum in seat feeling I do not think there is any doubt that the 8374 gets going a lot easier than the PT6266 up to 4000rpm , I think the top end is about the same and it would be interesting to see how the 3.2 Lt & the Vcam step 2 handles it ?

I was going to ask Prank before I answered you Duncan but the Pig jumped in, so yes! It was 17 months of bullshit and I would advise anyone to think long and hard before using any shop without them having some sort of insurance against Farked up jobs, because they will do and say anything to weasel out of their obligations. I fronted up by myself and builder had a mechanical engineer that did a report on a motor he had never seen and from what he said , knew absolutely nothing about them, I will give you just a few examples from my report on the engineers Report, this is from the motor builder that did the work for me to repair the water loss problem. "The writer" is a "Mechanical Engineer" and these are the answers to his assumptions in his report. He must have been schooled by the builder as he had never set eyes on my car or motor , It is a bit long, there is more , but this will give you some idea, I think? 6.1 Coolant level measurement "The writer" uses information from an UNNAMED MITSUBISHI vehicle on how to check the coolant level, no where does it state that the Mitsubishi System is the same as the Nissan System we are dealing with. As far as we know it may be a completely different type of cooling system and therefore the instructions are irrelevant and cannot be used to determine that Mr. Smith was checking the coolant level the “wrong” way. When the vehicle is cold the radiator must be full and the over flow bottle must be between the LOW and FULL marks, there is nothing complicated about this. If these levels decrease there is coolant loss somewhere. 6.2 Operational Variance Here the writer claims that because the vehicle now has an increased engine capacity the cooling system will have different coolant levels. He also states that the Nissan R34 Skyline GTR came with an RB25 engine, which is incorrect as an RB26DETT was the standard OEM engine. Now regardless of the engine being an RB26 an RB25 or in this case an RB30 engine block and an RB26 cylinder head as well as a 3.2L stroker kit to give the engine an overall capacity of 3.2L the cooling system will still function as per factory. The full level in the radiator is still when the radiator is full to the top and the overflow bottle is still full where the full marking is. These levels remain constant regardless of engine capacity. From the factory the various models of the R34 skyline all have the same coolant overflow bottles and radiators regardless of engine capacity. Coolant levels are not checked with a hot engine and/or cooling system so the writers claimed varying “hot/full level” and “cold/low level” are also incorrect, the Full and Low level markings are the acceptable maximum and minimum coolant levels for when the coolant is inspected on a cold and depressurised cooling system. When checking the coolant level by the time the radiator is cool enough and pressure is low enough for the radiator cap to be opened safely the coolant level will have returned to it’s natural level by recovering any coolant that is “pushed” into the over flow bottle during normal operation. So the theory of opening the radiator cap “upsetting the back and forth flow of coolant” is incorrect. 6.3 Initial Leakage In the 3rd point of this section the writer mentions that the “coolant pressure was unlikely to exceed 16psi while oil pressure would potentially have been 80 - 90psi” this is correct to a point. Coolant pressure is dependent on the radiator cap that is installed, so assuming it has a 16psi cap this is correct. Oil pressure is engine speed dependent (~30psi at idle and 80 - 90psi above 5000rpm) so the majority of street driving the engine would see a variable oil pressure between 30psi and 90psi. 2 The writer also states that we reported the engine block to be cracked, we used this as one of the possible causes of the coolant loss into the engine sump, as it is quite a common problem for these 20 year old engine blocks to crack when making over double the horsepower they were designed for by the manufacturer. Nowhere did we report this to be the final confirmed cause of the leak but it had to be a serious point of investigation. 7.2 Pressure testing The writer states that the leak should have been present when the engine block and cylinder head were pressure tested individually, this is true had the block been cracked or porous. How ever for the test to be conducted a plate is clamped to the deck face to seal off all the coolant jackets so the cooling system can be sealed off and pressurised, this plate is a generic item so it also covers the head stud holes and any other holes in the deck face such as oil feeds and drains that are on the deck face as well. It is for this reason that the leak was not present during this test, the fact that there were no leaks also suggest the deck face was not damaged because if it was the pressure test would have showed a leak between the deck face and the sealing plate. Next the writer states that by removing one of the near by head studs water was always going to gush out, this assumption is incorrect. The RB series of engines have blind head stud holes which means they do not pass through into water jackets. So had the stud holes been drilled and tapped to the correct depth there would not have been any water coming out of the stud hole and in turn no water leaking into down through the cylinder head oil feed and then down into the sump. The reason that particular stud was removed was because the engine uses that stud to feed the cylinder head with oil. The engine oil travels up the cylinder head oil feed gallery then up the outside of the stud and into the main oil galleries in the cylinder head. The head gasket has a cut out around the cylinder head oil feed and that particular head stud to allow the oil to flow between the two parts. A photo of this is included with my original report. (HEAD OIL FEED 01.JPG) So the logical course of action would be to follow the path, which the leaking water has travelled to find where it has started from, the result of this was the leak coming from the head stud hole. 7.3 Oversized stud use The writer states that other manufacturers, namely Holden use open head stud holes that pass through into water jackets and supply a sealer to seal these threads, this is partially true but there is one key difference. Holden use a head bolt and not a stud and nut set. The bolt head and washer helps to seal any water that may travel up the unsealed head bolt thread, studs are very different as they have a thread at both ends so the water can work its way between the threads and cause a leak, hence the need for thread sealer on any studs or bolts that screw into open ended holes. This is all irrelevant in this case as Nissan do not use open head stud holes for the RB series of engines so there is no need to ever worry about these kinds of problems even when using the ½” studs that were fitted to this particular engine. So removal of the stud while we were testing the engine should never have caused water to gush out contrary to what the writer suggests. The fact that the block deck surface and cylinder head face did not leak while they were being pressure tested proves that the faces were not damaged. As you can see from this "the writer" made many wrong statements regarding the leaking problem and I doubt if he knows anymore about the RB26 engine as I do and I know SFA!

Been a long drawn out process, but at least it is over and got a couple of $s back

Phew ?

Yeah mate , all good Thinking about it, I guess I could have shortened it up a bit. IF YOU GET A SHITTY JOB DONE AND IT FS up, YOU CAN ONLY CLAIM TO DO A SIMILAR SHITTY JOB TO GET IT BACK TO HOW IT WAS , MINUS THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM

Maybe I have some advice for the younger players , well I will try I went to the NCAT tribunal on Monday to try and get paid back for some of the repairs I had to have done to find and fix the water loss problem. The hearing went for 3 hours ish and in the end I was awarded a payment from the builder and a win has to be good The problem with these judgements, they have to follow their own guidelines. But the 2 companies that did the work did what they considered the correct way to build this type of RB3.2 build and did what they considered necessary to repair the motor and ensure it would be reliable . Here are a few of the main things they did that I could not be reimbursed for as they were not jobs done by the original builder or some parts could have been reused and I cannot get a better motor out of fixing a mistake by someone else and I found this to be a fair statement. But the parts and repair work done was thought to be necessary to make the motor 100% and I agreed Do not forget, water has been in the motor for months and had gone back to the builder to be fixed 3 times before I had enough and went elsewhere to find the problem. Chemical wash the engine Partial grout fill engine block Hone Bores Polish crankshaft Line hone main bearing tunnel Mill block and head faces Drill block and head for locating dowels Drill and tap block to relocate timing tensioner, timing belt and extra tensioner New piston ring set New race main and rod bearings New head gasket Etc etc The tribunal said I had to give the original builder the motor to fix as he could do it a lot cheaper in their own workshop and you cannot argue with that. I had told the builder where the car was and I thought it was then up to them to contact the shop that had located the leaking problem. He was not contacted. Later when I had decided to have the work done, I was told by the original builder that as far as they were concerned they found and fixed the leaking top radiator hose. I also gave them the information as the problem was found and received no reply, so I had the motor sent to a motor building shop to have the job finished and I paid for it. I felt I had no other option but to have the work done and take the chance it could be proven when and how the problem occurred, as it turned out I could and did But for anyone that has a problem with their car and the shop that did the work tells you it is not their problem, I would strongly suggest they at least follow a few steps below. 1. Give the builder a chance to do the work and only take it to someone else when they give you something in black and white stating that they will not take responsibility for the problem. Emails and texts are good as evidence as they give the time and date they were sent. 2. Document everything and keep all pertinent info, also keep them in order. Phone calls are not much good, as it is he said, they said and useless, unless it proves you had spoken to them on particular dates. 3. Before you allow another shop to do the work, give the original shop a last chance to take the car back and fix it, if they refuse there is not much else you can do but have your car fixed but at least you have evidence that you gave the original shop the opportunity to change their mind. 4. If you cannot afford to make your motor better or have work done to ensure the build is as it should have been, only get the work done that brings the car back to how it was when the original job was done or you will pay for anyother work they do and at the cost the original builder could fix it for.I think this stinks if you have no other options to have the car fixed. In my case, NCAT told me that some of the work carried out was not 100% necessary, but in the shops doing the rebuild minds, it was absolutely necessary for the motors longevity . So it cost me much more than I was paid for the repairs, but my motor is much better and I am happy to know everything is as it should have been in the first place THE END! PS, not yet , might swap the PT6266 Gen 2 for the EFR8374, the results from these turbos are too strong to ignore , response YEAH! THE END!

I see that the 8374 was first mentioned in this thread in 2010, when where they introduced? Have they been modified at all over that time, 6 years old + ?

there is only 141 pages on this thread, is it on another thread ?

Not sure if it is the site , but I cannot see the Post # anymore Tried to search for post 2442 and this came up again, lol What page was that on ?

Right

You have been busy getting these figures, you have to get a full time job and move off the mountain where you will get some oxygen, LOL There are some high evaluations there and looking good for the near future for GRT owners that have not trashed their cars having too much fun, hard to put a price on fun Have to speak to them again and up my insurance , it is good to be able to insure your car for what it is worth or close to it at a reasonable price.

Micko, you know I had a hiccup with the Vcam ECU setup and it was sorted last Thursday, the car is much different down low and gets going nicely, totally different to when you drove it at the BBQ I was very impressed with Bretts response with the 8374 on his 26 and was wondering how the 8374 would be on a 3.2. I believe the 8374 turbine wheel is much lighter than my 6266 Gen2 wheel, so it will spin earlier, I wonder if anyone has a back to back between the 2 turbos. They are both rated at 800ph , so i guess the light weight turbine wheel is the major difference ? We spoke about my motor needs to breathe better, I left everything as it was on the car before the initial 3.2 build, including the .84 rear housing. Would a 1.00 or bigger rear housing help on my 3.2 , keeping in mind I do not want to loose any bottom end. The exhaust is 3.5" from dump to tail, not eager to change it as it seems to work well and not too noisy , but would a 4" dump make any difference ?