discopotato03

Well I can't speak for Nissan's manifold but I can for the GT30 turbine housings . Like I did I suggest those interested go to the turbobygarrett site and look at the turbine maps for the GT3076R and GT3582R . Note the lines representing the 1.06 A/R housing on the GT30 turbine and the 0.82 A/R housing on the GT35 turbine . I think a lot of the reason why people can't run the GT3076R to its airflow potential limit is because they don't use the largest available housing for it . Its easy to understand that people are reluctant to do so because the boost threshold gets a bit higher - personally on a twin cam RB 30 I don't think this would be an issue . I don't find it surprising that any engine , sorry Wolf , with a GT3082R feels a bit strange . I don't know why Garrett ever made them , possibly it was marketing exercise that went wrong . Actually thinking about it I'd say it was a poor second cousin to the HKS spec GT3040 which is same deal wheel wise but they used the 50 rather than the 56 trim compressor of the same BCCW-18C family . There is a map of that 50T wheel at the Garret site but in a different GT40 comp housing , search GT4082 . Getting off the topic but HKS's closest thing to a GT3582R is the "GT3240" , similar beginnings to the 3582R but with a cropped turbine and a 54 trim version of the same family compressor instead of 56T . Before I bow out I'll say this , a turbine housing actually is a controlled fixed restriction . Its purpose is to collect the gasses from all intended cylinders and accelerate them into the turbine housings nossel which feeds the turbine blades . The A/R size of the housing is about what rate the gasses are accelerated into the nozzle section , the smaller the greater and the larger the lesser . The largest housing is less of a restriction than the smaller ones so the larger it is the lower the exhaust manifold pressure will be for a given exhaust gas output . As engine power outputs get higher and higher so does the requirement to expel greater volumes of exhaust gas , if you don't increase the size of a turbine housing the exhaust manifold pressure gets higher and higher . Again as I mentioned earlier I'm told that the turbine housings on GT3582Rs are bored out GT30 housings - they actually look like the same castings . If this is the case then the GT35 turbine being 8mm larger in diameter and very probably having a greater inducer tip height needs a larger wider passage machined into it to take the larger turbine wheel . So you get a larger and wider effective nossel and a larger diameter outlet hole (exducer) so you'd expect the housing with the larger turbine to pass the exhaust gasses with less restriction for a given A/R size compared to the GT30 turbine . If , using the force again , all the above is true then getting pretty much the same gas flow with a turbine that's designed to work with its native housing and nossel is a no brainer - provided the GT37 compressor can pump all the air you need . Just on those HKS cast RB20 manifolds , I know the pad is large enough to drill and tap for T4 pattern fasteners but is there enough meat in the casting to take the outlet ports up to T4 TS size ? The RB26 one was always intended to take a T4 TS turbine housing (TA45S) and from memory they are larger in the passages than their RB20 manifold . I know someone that has a 26 one and I must compare my RB20 one with theirs . Always open to others ideas , cheers A .

Just to quantify my opinions only on waste gates and exhaust manifold pressure - good to see that opinions can differ without daggers drawn ! What a waste gate sets out to do is make a controlled "leak" so that some of the exhaust gasses bypass the turbine to slow its rate of acceleration as the engine speed rises . To my way of thinking if the waste gate opened enough to make a substantial drop in manifold pressure and therefore gas speed the turbine would slow and take boost pressure with it because the turbine and compressor wheels are fixed on the same shaft . That's why I said that waste gates are almost always signalled by inlet manifold pressure and have total disregard for exhaust manifold pressure . Its very common to see OEM engines with two and a half plus times inlet manifold pressure in the exhaust manifold under boost . The roads to a really stonking and reliable turbo engine are a 1 to 1 ratio of pressure in both manifolds , it's this pressure balance across the head (actually across the inlet and exhaust ports) that allows an engine to scavenge effectively and not melt down . This is why (IMO anyway) a wastegate shouldn't be viewed as a pressure relief valve , if you wanted the waste gate to regulate off exhaust manifold pressure you'd have to get the signal pressure from the exhaust manifold . If your going to use a waste gate to regulate air pressure other ways have to be found to make sure exhaust manifold pressure and temperature don't get out of hand . The Garrett people OS told me that it's always preferable to use a larger AR turbine housing if exhaust pressure is getting a bit high , you can go to a larger turbine but the disadvantage to a degree is accelerating its greater mass (larger diameter) and if it has more compressor than you can use in a bulkier heavier compressor housing it gets a bit self defeating in a few different ways . Where IMO the larger turbine housing on a GT3076R pays off is that you get a decrease in exhaust manifold pressure and an increased range where ALL the exhaust gas is going through the turbine - ie waste gates shut longer . So with the decrease in exhaust pressure the engines wants to scavenge better and have lower pumping losses , they can usually take more ignition advance if needed because with lower exhaust pressure the detonation threshold can drop away too . The turbine size and mass hasn't changed but you can get a fair bit greater flow through it . When the whole turbo size increases the bulk and weight goes up with it and that doesn't fit in with power to weight and ease of maintenance aspects . Anyway out of time , got to run the Indian out to Parkes this afternoon so chow for now . A .

If you can buy a cartridge of the same part number as used in a HKS spec Garrett turbo you are getting the same thing . Its usually the wheel trims that vary with HKS spec turbos and yes they often use model specific turbine housings . With comp housings they generally do things like port shrouding where Garrett doesn't have a suitable part . For example on an RB six cylinder spec GTRS the comp cover is a non Garrett ported housing . The SR version uses a Nissan/Garrett commonly available compressor housing . The thing is its more expensive to produce a low volume application specific housing (either) and they only do it when nothing suitable is available off Garrett's shelf . A .

For piece of mind I'd buy a new oil cooler as well , any shrapnel that finds freedom later ... A .

Every one's going to have their own ideas and that's fine , I don't mind airing mine as long as people don't take them as gospel . I try to look at things from the perspective of what I think an engine will like given its spec/state of tune . NA engines are a different ball game because they are intended to work only with atmospheric pressure to charge their cylinders . They don't have a turbine and housing placed in their exhausts so at bit less restriction close to the engine itself . They are also cam'd to suit the higher compression ratio so that they get a dynamic (effectively throttled CR) to suit their requirements . Also pistons don't cop the thermal lashing that turbo ones do so aren't made to cope with conditions they normally wouldn't see . IMO (only) a higher static CR engine is going to make more off boost torque than a lower or turbo one because generally the cylinder pressures are higher . Na engines usually are not keen on having your typical OEM small turbos turbine/housing in the exhaust tract and it makes them restrictive and inclined to detonate early . Na engines because of their higher cylinder pressures and temperatures (compared to a turbo engine off boost) have sharper exhaust pulse energy and would try a drive a turbo into boost a little sooner than a lower comp engine would . My gut feeling is that since the higher comp engine is going to make a bit more torque down low and you wouldn't be making efforts try and spool the turbo at that stage . I'd be inclined to use larger turbine housings to give the engine a less restrictive more NA like exhaust tract to exhale into . The thing is that the larger the turbine housings AR is the less the requirement for high flowing waste gates becomes because more gas can pass through the larger passage and through the same turbine blades . Less to "waste" or bypass for controlling turbine speed and therefore boost pressure . We have to remember that a waste gate , because they are usually signalled/referenced off inlet pressure) , cannot be regarded as an exhaust side pressure relief valve . The things aren't intended to even start to crack open until the intended boost pressure is approached and if the exhaust manifold pressure is too high for the engine to cope with before this the waste gate doesn't know or care . DE + T engines can work OK but the user has to be that much more careful to keep an eye on exhaust gas temperatures and pressures because if they run riot they can and will kill your engine . The manufactures use lower comp pistons in forced induced engines so that they can survived the artificially increased CR of a boosted engine , if the higher NA CR is boosted then the cylinder temperatures and pressures invariably go higher than the turbo versions do and lesser spec pistons are left to cope or fail in a tougher environment . So IF you can keep the temps and pressures down to that which the engine can cope with and tune it properly then it has a reasonable chance of surviving . I don't know this posters circumstances but even if on a budget I'd look seriously at a cheaply freshened up VL RB30 NA engine , mod the block to fix the front gallery issues and go away laughing with 8.3 or whatever CR . Bigger lower pressure/temp Masi Ferguson and NO issues spooling a GT3076R . Just my thoughts , cheers A .

Every one's going to have their own ideas and that's fine , I don't mind airing mine as long as people don't take them as gospel . I try to look at things from the perspective of what I think an engine will like given its spec/state of tune . NA engines are a different ball game because they are intended to work only with atmospheric pressure to charge their cylinders . They don't have a turbine and housing placed in their exhausts so at bit less restriction close to the engine itself . They are also cam'd to suit the higher compression ratio so that they get a dynamic (effectively throttled CR) to suit their requirements . Also pistons don't cop the thermal lashing that turbo ones do so aren't made to cope with conditions they normally wouldn't see . IMO (only) a higher static CR engine is going to make more off boost torque than a lower or turbo one because generally the cylinder pressures are higher . Na engines usually are not keen on having your typical OEM small turbos turbine/housing in the exhaust tract and it makes them restrictive and inclined to detonate early . Na engines because of their higher cylinder pressures and temperatures (compared to a turbo engine off boost) have sharper exhaust pulse energy and would try a drive a turbo into boost a little sooner than a lower comp engine would . My gut feeling is that since the higher comp engine is going to make a bit more torque down low and you wouldn't be making efforts try and spool the turbo at that stage . I'd be inclined to use larger turbine housings to give the engine a less restrictive more NA like exhaust tract to exhale into . The thing is that the larger the turbine housings AR is the less the requirement for high flowing waste gates becomes because more gas can pass through the larger passage and through the same turbine blades . Less to "waste" or bypass for controlling turbine speed and therefore boost pressure . We have to remember that a waste gate , because they are usually signalled/referenced off inlet pressure) , cannot be regarded as an exhaust side pressure relief valve . The things aren't intended to even start to crack open until the intended boost pressure is approached and if the exhaust manifold pressure is too high for the engine to cope with before this the waste gate doesn't know or care . DE + T engines can work OK but the user has to be that much more careful to keep an eye on exhaust gas temperatures and pressures because if they run riot they can and will kill your engine . The manufactures use lower comp pistons in forced induced engines so that they can survived the artificially increased CR of a boosted engine , if the higher NA CR is boosted then the cylinder temperatures and pressures invariably go higher than the turbo versions do and lesser spec pistons are left to cope or fail in a tougher environment . So IF you can keep the temps and pressures down to that which the engine can cope with and tune it properly then it has a reasonable chance of surviving . I don't know this posters circumstances but even if on a budget I'd look seriously at a cheaply freshened up VL RB30 NA engine , mod the block to fix the front gallery issues and go away laughing with 8.3 or whatever CR . Bigger lower pressure/temp Masi Ferguson and NO issues spooling a GT3076R . Just my thoughts , cheers A .

A bit more . I think once you go to three liters there isn't the low down torque requirement because you have the extra 20% capacity to get around the burbs well enough . If you are looking for super power from an RB30 twin cam then it has to be able to breathe and rev and if it can't exhale easily then it will find its ceiling prematurely IMO . There has to be enough exhaust gas capacity to cater for a 3 liter engine that suddenly wants to exhale like a 6 or 7 liter one and I can't see the largest particle split T3 flange ports handling the gas flow without a significant pressure rise in the exhaust tract . HKS has been around for a while now and have lots of bits for high revving high powered RB26 engines . Take their single low mount cast iron manifold as an example , T4 TS flanged for the TA45S that went with it . The T04Z kits they do are also made with the TS T4 footprint , even though those turbine housings are not really twin scroll . Really all the big frame ball bearing Garrett's (T04Z/GT4088R/GT4094R/GT42R/T51R etc) are designed to use T4 flanged turbine housings and the only reason why T3 flanged housings can be fitted to T04Z's in because T4 P trim turbines and housings have been around for some decades in the diesel world . Plenty of early T04 turbos had little T04B series 71mm compressors on them and they at times used single and twin entry turbine housings with T3 flanges . Actually I think some people used to call the twin entry "T3" flange T4 Euro and its actually a little wider across the twin inlets than a true T3 single entry housing . Cubes here had pics posted of how he did a bit of porting on his GT30 turbine housing to try and make it match his RB exhaust manifold . For a cheapest way out I believe it is possible to profile machine twin scroll T4 flanged housings to take a GT3582R cartridge , search GT35T4 because I think I got a few examples to read about . As per the EJ25 that's a different can of worms . The flatulence fours are a long way between the exhaust ports and not impossible but involved to do TS header manifolds for . In their favour they have 600+ cc cylinders and a large bore size , the the shortish rods don't really compliment their stroke though . I'd be a bit worried about gearboxes on the Roo's but that hasn't stopped people running big turbos on them . Tiz a great pity that there were never LHD R32/33/34's because the Americans would have had better things to play with through the 90's . Out of time again back later Cheers A . Must read the FR stuff in those links when I get the chance , I should have guessed it'd have Geoff Raicer all over it !

They are both low impedance injectors like most turbo ones of the era . The only thing that may be suitable are the RX7 460cc high impedance ones - series 4 I think . It's looking like the peak and hold injector driver box that ViPec can supply is the cheapest option , it opens up a wide range of low impedance squirters so easier to tailor the injectors to the application . Cheers A .

You raise some very valid points Lithium but as always people have financial limits and hopefully realistic goals for mostly street driven cars . For the money I think a 1.06 AR integral gate GT3076R would be pretty good on a reasonably warmed over RB30 twin cam . I think you could use the factory exhaust manifold and with a little head work and mild cams and have a reasonably linear six that felt like a 5+ liter v8 . The T3 flange footprint has only so much real estate and if you plant a divider in the middle of it a bit less . What I am saying is that a really flying Rb25 and a GT3076R can probably just about run to the limit of an open collector type T3 flange , not be too laggy and feel more than adequate in the sink you back in the seat stakes . LOL : TO BE CONTINUED Domestic bliss for a lil while . A .

The GT3076R family is getting larger isn't it ? I think you're going to find the TS 1.06 AR turbine housings for GT3582R's are the larger T4 International sized mounting flange . Geoff did reckon Garrett was looking at a TS "T3" flanged version but none available yet . Your getting into a grey area with a housing that size and the T3 flange because the ports need to be larger than that flange has room for . The Single Scroll ones don't have the port divider and just about maximise the area the T3 flange has . I have opinions on larger housing sizes and GT3076R's vs GT3582R's but they're not based on real world experience . If I had a GT3076R and did the RB30 upgrade I wouldn't be in any great hurry to reach for a GT3582R . I think this is a situation where you can look directly at the compressor ends capacity of a GT3076R and say yes I want more air or no 540 hp's worth is enough . Don't forget that the GT30 turbine has more in it than it's native 0.82 AR turbine housing can support so if you don't realistically need 600+ horse powers worth of air then I think the GT3582R is a bit too much . Like I've said in the past a GT3076R with a 1.06 AR turbine housing is about the same maximum exhaust gas flow as a GT3582R with a 0.82 AR turbine housing - ~ 27 corrected lbs exhaust gas/min . Using the force here again . A reasonably big engine like an RB30 twin cam is going to make quite reasonable torque without positive inlet manifold pressure , particularly if it breathes well and doesn't have 7 to 1 CR . Off boost it's going to prefer a larger turbine housing because less restriction means better breathing and the opportunity to give it as much ignition timing as it can productively use . Free revving + good consumption etc etc . Cubes here runs a GT3076R 0.82 AR on his RB30 DOHC and I think reckons it makes positive inlet manifold pressure at 1500 + engine revs . If it were me I'd think seriously about using the next size up or 1.06 AR GT30 turbine housing and possibly getting positive pressure at maybe 2500 engine revs , still not real high by my crystal balls standards . An RB30's going to get a GT3076R going earlier in the 1.06 housing than it would a GT3582R in a 1.06 housing . It has to because the GT30 turbine is about 8mm smaller than the GT35 one and its driving a 76.2mm compressor rather than an 82mm one . I personally think the GT3582R is using bored out GT30 housings and your not going to get all a GT35 turbine can give in those GT30 turbine housings . Serious people overseas don't think much of GT3582R's until they put larger T4 flanged turbine housings on them - mainly twin scroll ones . Diesel GT35R's use big GT40 family turbine housings , actually GT40 compressor housings as well which doesn't say much for the GT3582R's T04S compressor housing - with the 82mm GT40 compressor . Changing a turbine housing is always cheaper and easier than changing turbos because in this case you don't need to alter anything else . The GT3582R uses a physically larger compressor housing and a half inch larger outlet barb so more plumbing work . Usually in GT3582R discussions BB T04R's (T04Z) get a mention and they have their place but . If you could fit adequate size housings (both) on a GT3582R I reckon the gap in performance between the two would close right up . The thing is that by the time you got a 35R to that stage you've probably spent GT4088R money anyway and it's a better thing IMO on an RB30 twin cam - a serious one . Anyway from what I can tell the 82 housing on a GT3076R is more than adequate for a warmed over RB25DET but on an RB30 I'd opt for the 1.06 one . For a bit more response with a GT3076R on an RB25 I think the way is to use smaller compressor trim versions , than the usual 56T one , if you can find them . The options were 48/52/56T compressors in the GT3076R/3037 76.2mm group . I in theory have a GT3076R/3037S 52 comp trim cartridge at Garrett's waiting for its matching port shrouded compressor housing to turn up and will post pics when they do . By the CHRA and turbo assembly numbers it is what I've asked for and assuming it is then the only other GT3076R/3037 option , the 48 comp trim one , is still to be found . According to my listings the 3037 was available in 48 compt trim and the cartridge number was I think 700177-5 , turbo number 700382-8 . I believe it had the non port shrouded version of the T04E 0.60 AR compressor housing , I think I have a pic of one somewhere . Again using the force but my gut feeling is that it would have been a better all round thing than the real GT3076R and the only external difference would be the 60 AR T04E comp housing vs the 50 AR one and the std 70mm inlet boss vs the 3071R's 100mm one . Looking into these 48T ones as well , cheers A .

Hi all , not that there is one currently available but I'm interested to know what sort of interest there would be in a twin scroll twin integral waste gate GT30 turbine housing based on Garrett's latest Evo 10 one but in T3 flange . I am no one in the greater scheme of things but sometimes ideas run past the right people get up . I'd like to suggest to some people in the US that if the new Evolution 10's twin scroll twin integral gate could be made available in a twin entry T3 flange that it would sell in justifiable quantities . To have the least amount of development it may mean keeping the Evo 10's outlet but you're up for a dump pipe when changing turbos anyway . Anyway these Evo housings are currently made in 0.73 and 0.94 AR ratios and I reckon the 0.94 would be good on an RB25 or 26 . So , how many would put their hand up for such a thing , possibly exy though . Cheers Adrian .

Yes both are the same thing . The only difference I've ever noticed is that early HKS ones had BSK1 cast into the compressor housing instead of KTT1 . I believe the difference is the angle of the compressor housings outlet , the BSK1 is at a slightly more acute radius away from the volute so maybe a slightly more compact plumbing option . The HKS bling (blue) tagged ones nowdays use the KTT1 housing as well . What Garrett originally marketed themselves was not a 3037 as in the 37 or GT37 series compressor wheel , the T series compressor was ~ 76mm OD and used the T04S compressor housing . The most important thing on the tag is the 700382-12 assembly part number , it means the same thing as 3037S-56T . My lists of HKS apps also show turbo number 700382-11 which uses the same cartridge (meaning the same compressor) and I'm going to assume it means 3037 , no "S" , so std non port shrouded compressor housing . Other lists I have confirm the non "S" variants as having a 70mm inlet boss vs the S types 100mm one . Cheers A . Must remember one day to chase up the 48T versions availability , pretty sure they were 700382-5 and cartridge 700177-5 . Only one type listed and non ported comp housing , shows same 420 PS output as 2835R and 2835 Pro S and gut feeling tells me it's what the GT3071R should have been .

WYTSKY I have tried for ages to get someone to take pics of the fasteners (grub screws) that hold the funnel mouthed insert in the port shrouded compressor housings . Can you possibly take a picture of the side of the insert so we can see what the profile of it is like . I'm curious if they have holes or dimples that the three grub screws butt up against . Also if possible a close up of the grub screws by themselves , I gather they're allen or hex head grub screws . From what the ID tag says it's a HKS spec Garrett GT3037 56T which is the same as a Garrett GT3076R 56T . They both start out as turbo assembly no 700382-12 but HKS fit that bell mouthed insert and one of their custom turbine housings and call it a 3037 . So yes , it's the right one . If it came through a Garrett dealer I'm surprised it has the insert and screws . Cheers A .

Were they a Hi Flowed injector or a standard item , high impedance I gather . Cheers A .

Quick update , my 52T 3037 cartridge is at Garrett now but the port shrouded comp housing is a couple of weeks away . Cheers A .

Just curious to know what high impedance injectors are available for RB20's . BTW don't want to know about injector dropping resistors or even RB20's . Just larger high imp squirters . Cheers A .

Don't know if this idea is a silly one but . Is there any oxygen in having a spacer plate made up fitted and bore the whole lot for thin walled liners ? If the idea flew you could keep your block number and retain its piston oil squirters , do the usual with an RB30 crank and rods and have your three liters ? Thoughts , cheers A .

Hi all , I'm keen on a Vipec V44 for the daily but they are set up for saturated or high impedance injectors . The daily needs to run the old hose tail injectors but there doesn't seem to be much going in this type that are high impedance . From what I read Vipec do a peak and hold injector driver box for the V44 but if obtainable the high impedance squirters would be easier . The engine uses 225cc high imp injectors and I reckon something in the 370-460cc range should do the job , I gather the V44 is more than up to the task of running injectors of this size in an 1800cc turbo four . Some sites claim that some of the NA RX7's used a high imp 460cc injector . Also I've seen mention of people using dropping resistors when converting from high to low imp injectors , I believe it is workable but you don't get the advantage of a peak and hold system without peak and hold injector drivers in the computer . Any help appreciated , cheers A .

No I want to know about the V44 not alternates . Cheers A .

Vipec people , need to know if the V44 can have alternate injector drivers fitted in the case to run low impedance/peak and hold injectors . I read on there site about an adapter box but would prefer to have it in the one simple unit . I ask because I'm looking at using one in a four cylinder application with old hose barb style injectors . All the easy ones are low impedance so may need to use them . Cheers and thanks , Adrian . BTW if this works out well may look at a plug in for the R33 .

Brad I mean between 707160-9 and 707160-5 turbos , they use different compressor wheels . As for the two GT2859R's , they use the same cartridge so they use the same compressor wheel . I'd say logically speaking the ones without actuators are in the form supplied to HKS who used a different actuator . Yes HKS loses the monopoly over time , probably anti competition laws . Generally the only drama is if HKS uses non Garrett housings because Garrett don't supply those . Good examples are say the "real" GT3076R , it was a HKS spec unit but you can buy them through Garrett nowdays . Fingers crossed also the 52 comp trim version I'm hoping . The GTRS is another one , you can buy the T28 flanged version with the Nissan/Garrett comp cover on it too . GT2859R/GTSS a third example . Many of these HKS spec Garrett turbos have been around for quite a while so if you ask the right people you can probably order them in if prepared to wait . Provided you know the turbo and cartridge number you're in with a fighting chance . A .

"You can't really cut corners with bastard twin turbos - way too much time and money involved proving that it doesn't work . Nissan didn't just throw a couple of generic dryers on RB26's , it's not as easy as designing a single system but does have advantages" . In a nut shell the big advantage of the twins is low exhaust manifold pressure and the pulse division of the engines front and rear three cylinders . It can be done with a larger single turbocharger but very few are available that achieve the same thing with integral waste gating . Anyway the original poster seems to want to get his power ask from a quite low budget and I don't think that's possible with a GTR/RB26 . The trouble with those engine , so I'm told , is that they don't have enough capacity to drag a GTR's bulk around especially if your trying to use boost for torque early in the engines rev range . Same basics apply , smallish turbos come on early for lets get going torque then run out of gas flow capacity and lose out up high . You can have the power ask 300-350 (actually TORQUE ask) but don't cry if it won't be pulling at 8000 revs . You just can't have it both ways . Maybe in a perfect world the GTR's would have come with 4WD RB30 bottom ends , you very probably could have got away with a far simpler single scroll single turbo and used the capacity to cover the lack of low down torque in the 2558cc RB"26" . But Nissan didn't , something to do with turbo multiplication effective capacity and the weight class they could run in with Grp A . Fine for a race car but race cars don't tool around at lowish revs like road cars do , history shows that they blitzed the field - on the race track . In this case the homologation factors bit the roadies on the bum . There is nothing cheap and simple about GTR's , I think simplest and cheapest with them is to use good bolt on twin turbos because you keep 95% of the parts around them and look standard . The thing is to have a set goal and not change that part way through the build . Built something PRACTICLE that is USABLE and let the heroes live with the laggy intractable pig . Do it once do everything at the same time ie head /cams / manifold matching etc and live with the result . A .

Your call but not as easy as it first appears . Like people have said nothing fits - except the turbine housings mounting flange and even then I thought GTR GT28 turbine housings were threaded for either studs or through bolts . The bottom line is that even the factory twin turbos and associated plumbing is all up close and cuddly - and that's with factory engineering . SR20 GT28 turbos or rather their housings are not even close to what RB26 spec GT25 or GT28 turbos use , they won't position the turbos or their plumbing where everything needs to be - note the "eye" holes on the bottom of GTR spec turbos compressor housings , SR spec or generic comp housings don't have them . As I said your call but the best minimalist approach (IMO) would be to fit fresh cartridges between the std housings even if that means machining them to suit . No offense but I wouldn't go near a "budget" RB26 with GTRS/GT2871R cartridges , I would NOT machine the std 26's small comp covers to suit 71mm compressors - too small and defeats the whole purpose IMO . May seem expensive but really bolt on turbos like the GT2859R's are good things , unfortunately I don't think their cartridges are available separately which is a shame . You can't really cut corners with bastard twin turbos - way too much time and money involved proving that it doesn't work . Nissan didn't just throw a couple of generic dryers on RB26's , it's not as easy as designing a single system but does have advantages . Over to you , cheers A .

He's in Atlanta USA and the RB's in a USDM 240SX S13 , don't think they got Falcon Motor Co rubbish over there . I know it goes against the grain having elec fans in front of the radiator but how are you off for space there ? Over here Davies Craig say that their elec fans move more air in pusher mode that puller mode . Years ago a feller I know here had a ginormous elec fan on the front of an equally huge intercooler in the nose of a Datsun 1600 (510 in the US) and a bulky engine (FJ20 Turbo - DOHC EFI) compared to the std carby 4 cyl L16 . The radiator was from a Pulsar SSS (Sentra SE/R in US) and it worked well . Previously he had two small elec fans behind the radiator and it was always running hot . I think provided all the air going through the large front mount IC also goes through the radiator all's well . Cheers A .

It would be nice if someone had pics of the GT2859R's compressor , someone here had GTR GTSS turbos but never got around to posting pics of one's comp wheel . It is interesting that the comp wheel is 0.7mm smaller on the 59R and I'm sure there would be differences in tip height as well . Whatever Garrett did HKS cashed in on the better match between the compressor and turbine . If the price is similar/same I don't see any reason to buy the -7's . A .