Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I guess this could be semi-off topic, as this isnt a question for an RB engine, but the nissansilvia forum is chockers of fully sick kids, and not much technical knowledge...

Im currently in the process of rebuilding my SR20. In its previous form it made 272rwkw on pump fuel with a hks t300 @ 25psi, microtech ecu, and weisco forged pistons.

The turbo's performance is actually quite good, which from memory made full boost around 3700-4000rpm. The main downside is that the stupid amount of boost it requires for the power it makes. On the lower boost setting of 19psi, althought it was never dyno'd when i had the car, the seat of the pants feel isnt much different from the 25 so that tells me the turbo is out of its efficiency range correct?

The engine has been rebuilt with rods, pistons, solid lifters, cams etc, and are hoping for around 330rwkw, and are wondering if say modifying the current turbo is worth its while? I remember reading on here not long ago someone had the housing machined a few mm and picked up 20rwkw or so while just raising its boost threshold slightly? Would getting it rebuilt with slightly larger wheels or housing give more power at lower boost, or being an old school turbo, would i be better off getting a gt3071r?

The new engine's rev limit will be no higher than 9000rpm, so something that made full boost around 4500rpm is fine, as it gives it a 4500rpm usable power band. If a new turbo is the way to go, is the 3071r the best way? if not what?

Edited by Cool Hand Luke
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/123542-modifying-turbo/
Share on other sites

Provided you use the real one and don't go any larger than necessary on turbine housing AR its a good start . The current one (real one) ATM doesn't have an integral wastegate . There is a .82 integral housing version in the pipe but its probably too big for an RB20 . If Garrett make an integral .63 AR version of the GT30 housing it would be pretty good on that turbo but don't expect boost off idle for a 270Kw RB20 .

Cheers A .

Edited by discopotato03
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/123542-modifying-turbo/#findComment-2281232
Share on other sites

Provided you use the real one and don't go any larger than necessary on turbine housing AR its a good start . The current one (real one) ATM doesn't have an integral wastegate . There is a .82 integral housing version in the pipe but its probably too big for an RB20 . If Garrett make an integral .63 AR version of the GT30 housing it would be pretty good on that turbo but don't expect boost off idle for a 270Kw RB20 .

Cheers A .

Hey thats cool, cos its for a SR20 :D. Have a low mount hks exhaust manifold, with hks external wastegate (not sure what size), and hks t300 on it currently, and it makes 272rwkw now. Im looking for 330rwkw with the new engine, and thought modifying the t300 would be a better option than getting a completely new turbo.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/123542-modifying-turbo/#findComment-2281443
Share on other sites

Dont modify what you have, your gonna be creating a guess work turbo really.

Get something new... im not expirienced with what works on SR's but your gonna need something reasonably big. I dont think a 3071 will get there.

hrm...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/123542-modifying-turbo/#findComment-2281557
Share on other sites

Nothing that 75 gas wont fix. For $1500 you can get a wet kit, bottle warmer, NOS filter and guage. Wont have to replace any existing parts on your car, and will give you bucket loads more torque. It is the cheapest and easiest way to make 60kw without losing the driveability of your car. Will make the power with less boost and engine timing. have a serious think about it.

Dont modify what you have, your gonna be creating a guess work turbo really.

Get something new... im not expirienced with what works on SR's but your gonna need something reasonably big. I dont think a 3071 will get there.

hrm...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/123542-modifying-turbo/#findComment-2281923
Share on other sites

The T3 based GT3071R will get you close to 300rwkw. Unforunately the last 10% to get you to 330rwkw will mean another big step again in turbo charger selection and thus more lag egGT3040R.

http://www.atpturbo.com/Merchant2/merchant...tegory_Code=GRT

I would try the GT3071R. After that, I believe you're just getting too big for an SR20. Just as a quick note, you really need boost to get more power. You either increase the volumetric efficiency or up the boost. Unforunately you cant achieve say 330rwkw on 15psi unless the peak is at something ridiculous like 8000rpm, and the motor has to be damn well set up to achieve such a thing.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/123542-modifying-turbo/#findComment-2282297
Share on other sites

check out nissansilvia.com aswell you might be able to get a lot more help there from the silvia boys to do specific with the sr.
I guess this could be semi-off topic, as this isnt a question for an RB engine, but the nissansilvia forum is chockers of fully sick kids, and not much technical knowledge...
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/123542-modifying-turbo/#findComment-2282366
Share on other sites

The 3071 will be working off it's tits to get you 330rwkw.

Go for a GT30R with a 0.63 rear housing. You'll have full boost by 3700 and it will quite easily produce what you want at 19psi. I have put a GT30R on an SR before and it made 300rwkw on 16psi with conservative timing. It should fit fairly easily onto the HKS manifold. You can get one for $1750

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/123542-modifying-turbo/#findComment-2282808
Share on other sites

Well.. the way I see it is that there is hardly any difference between the power capability of the GT30R and the GT3071R besides the larger compressor which flows a hair more (~2 lb/min). However the GT30R will be considerably more laggy for no huge gain. Gotta watch out going too big on an SR20 or it just becomes a real pig.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/123542-modifying-turbo/#findComment-2282966
Share on other sites

Well.. the way I see it is that there is hardly any difference between the power capability of the GT30R and the GT3071R besides the larger compressor which flows a hair more (~2 lb/min). However the GT30R will be considerably more laggy for no huge gain. Gotta watch out going too big on an SR20 or it just becomes a real pig.

The GT30R flows 200hp more than the GT3071R...why do you think this is a hair more? The GT30R with the 0.6 rear will come on full on an SR at around 3700.....laggy....I think not.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/123542-modifying-turbo/#findComment-2283033
Share on other sites

200hp more? No way. Maybe 20 hp more. Unless you are thinking of the GT3071 T2 flanged version with the integral wastegate which is definitely not the same and yes there is plenty of difference.

The turbine and rear housing is the same. The compressor is 76mm vs 71mm but the difference is ~50lb/min vs ~52lb/min worth of flow. Thats certainly not 200hp more unless you can get some documentation to prove otherwise?

GT3071R

http://www.atpturbo.com/Merchant2/merchant...tegory_Code=GRT

GT30R

http://www.atpturbo.com/Merchant2/merchant...tegory_Code=GRT

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/123542-modifying-turbo/#findComment-2283153
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info. The plan was to run a 50 or 75hp shot when its run at the strip anyway, plus if it makes most of its power from gas, then i see it as a bit of a one hit wonder....

I dont mind a higher boost threshold, as it will have a 9000-9200rpm rev limit, as i said. Good power from even 4500rpm, still gives it a 4500-4700rpm usable powerband, and 50% of its total rev limit, which is fine.

The T300 that was on it before i guess could be classed as a bit of a laggy turbo, but when driven correctly i didnt find it a problem except a few times on the street, and that was due to an error on my behalf more than anything else.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/123542-modifying-turbo/#findComment-2283162
Share on other sites

200hp more? No way. Maybe 20 hp more. Unless you are thinking of the GT3071 T2 flanged version with the integral wastegate which is definitely not the same and yes there is plenty of difference.

The turbine and rear housing is the same. The compressor is 76mm vs 71mm but the difference is ~50lb/min vs ~52lb/min worth of flow. Thats certainly not 200hp more unless you can get some documentation to prove otherwise?

GT3071R

http://www.atpturbo.com/Merchant2/merchant...tegory_Code=GRT

GT30R

http://www.atpturbo.com/Merchant2/merchant...tegory_Code=GRT

I'm talking about a Garrett GT3082R which used to be known as a GT30R. Just like the GT35R is now called a GT3582. The GT3082R (SB8006, SB8006A and SB8006B if you would like the Garrett part number) is rated at 600hp.

The GT3071 (700382-3 and 700382-12) is rated at 400hp. You can do the math but on my calculator that equals a 200hp difference. I don't care about ATP turbos....Garrett make them, Garrett rate them.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/123542-modifying-turbo/#findComment-2283252
Share on other sites

But the GT30R is the "GT3076R" #700382-12, CHRA 700177-7? You can find it on page 32 of the Garrett Catalogue.

The GT3082R uses a 82mm GT35 compressor, so its a hybrid of the GT30 turbine with a GT35 comp.

The Garrett's GT3071R on the website are all the T2 type which are rated around 450hp because they have the cut down 56mm turbine, integral wastegate and T2 flange. In the T3 flange and uncut 60mm turbine config, its then you can get upto 500hp.

Funnily enough they do not list the GT3071R in the T3 housing and the uncut 60mm GT30 turbine. But all you have to do is throw on the T3 housing on the proper cartridge and you're done.

Anyways come to think of it, if he doesnt mind the lag and he can rev to 9000rpm, maybe the GT30R or even larger might have to be the go.

Anyways I'll leave it at that.. gettin messy the thread. Discopotato03 can add some valuable information to this discussion IMO.

Edited by Busky2k
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/123542-modifying-turbo/#findComment-2283317
Share on other sites

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...